ATTl 

'iyfS^  TOWARDS 

MRWMSMA/fDEVOmOM 


H-MUCKERMi 


w 


4       ^*         !>  i 


BL  263  .M82  1922 
Muckermann,  Hermann,  1877 

1962. 
Attitude  of  Catholics 

towards  Darwinism  and 


Attitude  of   Catholics 


TOWARDS 


Darwinism  and  Evolution. 


BY 


H.  MUCKERMANN,  S.  J. 


WITH     FOUR    PI,  ATE)  S. 


Third  Edition 


B.  HERDER  BOOK  CO., 
17  South  Broadway,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

and 
68  Great  Russell  St.,  London,  W.  C. 
1922 


NIHIL  OBSTAT. 

St.  Louis,  December  13,  1905. 

F.  G.  Hoi^wECK, 

Censor. 

IMPRIMATUR. 
St.  Louis,  December  14,  1905. 

JOANNKS  J.  G1.ENNON, 

Archiepiscopus  Sti.  Ludovici. 


Becktold  Printing  and  Book  Mfgr.  Co.,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 


CONTENTS. 


Page 

Introduction  ...         ....         5 

PART  I. 

Darwin^ s  Theory  of  Natural  Selection  and  our 
Attitude  towards  it. 
Chapter  i.  — Darwin's  Theory  of  Natural  Selec- 
tion      8 

Chapter  11. — Darwin's  Theory  of  Natural  Selec- 
tion refuted         .         .         .         •        15 

PART  II. 

The  Generalization  of  Darwin'' s   Theory  and 

our  Attitude  towards  it. 

Chapter  in. — Haeckel's  Monism         ...       23 

PART  III. 

The  Application  of  Darwin'' s  Theory  to  Man 

and  our  Attitude  toivards  it. 

Chapter  iv.  — "Man  a  Higher  Beast"         .         .       32 

Chapter  v.    — The  Origin  of  Man's  Soul     .  .       39 

Chapter  VI.  — The  "First  Main  Argument"  for 

the  Animal   Descent  of   Man's 

Body 47 

Chapter  VII. — The  "Second  Main  Argument" 
for  the  Animal  Descent  of 
Man's  Body      ....        59 

PART  IV. 

The   Theory  of  Evolution  and  our  Attitude 

towards  it. 

Chapter  viii. — Evolution  and  Faith   ...       74 

Chapter  ix.    — Evolution  and  Reason         .         .       84 

Chapter   x.     —Evolution      and      the      Natural 

Sciences .....       94 
Conclusion 109 


introduction: 


A  T  every  turn  we  are  brought  face  to  face  with  the 
magic  words  of  modern  science,  Darwinism  and 
Evolution.  Nor  is  it  difficult  to  see  the  destructive 
influence  which  these  captious  phrases  have  hitherto 
exercized,  especially  on  the  minds  of  the  young. 

Significant,  indeed,  is  the  remark  which  the  zoolo- 
gist Fleischmann  makes  in  his  lectures  on  the  theory 
of  descent.  "In  fact,"  says  he,  ''the  charm  exerted 
by  the  modern  theory  of  descent  upon  every  person 
open  to  impressions  has  proved  to  be  remarkably 
efficient.  No  other  scientific  hypothesis  is  equally 
capable  of  entangling  and  at  the  same  time  holding  us 
fast  within  the  intricate  meshes  of  its  suggestions. 
The  problem  involving  the  history  of  man's  earliest 
days  long  since  buried  in  oblivion  ;  the  question  of 
man's  first  appearance  on  this  earth,  and  the  inquisi- 
tive search  into  the  first  small  beginnings  from  which 
he  reached  the  lofty  pinnacle  of  modern  culture  and 
civilization  ;  such  and  kindred  questions  must  inevit- 
ably, at  one  time  or  other,  suggest  themselves  to  every 
thoughtful  man  and  imperatively  call  for  an  answer. ' '  ^) 

Thus  it  sometimes  happens  that  also  in  Catholic 
circles  men  of  prominence  rise  up  in  defense  of  Dar- 
winism. Others,  on  the  contrary,  filled  with  a  timid 
and  exaggerated  apprehension  of  falling  victims  to  the 
seductive  charms  of  this  hypothesis  and  with  an 
1)  Die  Descendenztheorie,  Leipzig,  1901,  p.  1. 
(5) 


6  INTRODUCTION. 

instinctive  horror  for  all  that  savors  of  the  theory  of 
evolution,  prefer  to  shelve  the  question.  For,  in  their 
minds,  the  admission  of  any  evolutionary  principle  is 
tantamount  to  a  denial  of  God's  existence,  and  neces- 
sarily implies  that  the  loathsome  and  degenerate  ape 
was  man's  progenitor. 

We  propose  to  offer  to  the  educated  Catholic  public 
and  especially  to  Catholic  students  a  clear  and  brief 
exposition  of  the  true  nature  of  "Darwinism  and 
Evolution, ' '  adding  at  the  same  time  such  observ- ations 
as  are  necessary  to  define  the  attitude  of  Catholics 
towards  them. 

In  all  questions  of  grave  moment  bearing  on  the 
subject,  we  have  carefully  consulted  Father  Wasmann's 
latest  publication  "Modern  Biology  and  the  theory  of 
Evolution,"  ^)  which  has  met  with  universal  satisfac- 
tion and  applause.  From  this  work,  too,  we  have 
adopted  the  distinction  between  the  fourfold  meaning 
of  "Darwinism,"  which  we  have  made  the  basis  of 
our  inquiry.  Besides,  we  have  not  neglected  to  call 
to  our  assistance  the  best  works  of  many  recent  and 
reliable  non-Catholic  scientists. 

We  open  our  treatise  with  a  short  enumeration  of 
the  principal  meanings  of  the  terms  "Darwinism  and 
Evolution." 

The  word  "Darwinism"  is  taken  in  a  four- fold 
sense,  one  of  which,  however,  may  easily  be  abused. 

In  its  first  meaning  the  word  designates  the  theory 
of  natural  selection,  which  was  established  by  Charles 
Darwin  in  the  j^ear  1859. 

1)  Krich  Wasmann,  S.  J.,  "Die  Moderne  Eiologie  und 
Entwicklungstheorie.''  2.  Aufl.,  Herder,  1904,  pp.  XII,  323, 
40  Abbildungen  und  4  Tafeln. 


INTRODUCTION.  7 

The  second  meaning  of  the  word  is  contained  in 
Darwin's  doctrine  ampliJBed  and  generalized  to  a  new 
philosophical  system,  to  a  new  world-view.  Darwinism 
in  this  meaning  is  sometimes  spoken  of  as  ''Haeckel- 
ism,'^  in  memory  of  its  founder,  Ernest  Haeckel. 

In  its  third  acceptation  Darwinism  applies  the  prin- 
ciples of  Darwin's  theory  of  natural  selection  to  the 
human  species  and  signifies  the  theory  of  manh  animal 
descent. 

The  fourth  and  last  meaning  of  Darwinism  is  (as 
we  shall  point  out  in  the  course  of  the  present  essay) 
nothing  hut  the  misuse  of  a  term,  and  in  reality  identical 
with  the  general  theory  of  organic  evolution  in  as  far  as 
this  is  opposed  to  the  theory  of  constancy.  The  latter 
theory  maintains  that  the  systematic  species  of  plants 
and  animals  have  been  originally  created  in  the  form 
in  which  they  exist  at  present. 

Accordingly  we  must  from  the  very  outset,  clearly 
distinguish  between  the  four  interpretations  of  "Dar- 
winism and  Evolution,"  just  assigned.  Thus  are  we 
enabled  to  separate  the  chaff  from  the  grain  and  to 
draw  the  line  of  demarcation  between  shadow  and 
light,  error  and  truth  ;  then,  and  only  then,  can  there 
be  question  of  forming  a  sound  judgment  about  Dar- 
winism and  the  theory  of  evolution. 


PART  I. 

DARWIN'S  THEORY  OF  NATURAL  SELECTION 

AND  OUR  ATTITUDE  TOWARDS  IT. 


Chapter    I. 
Darwin's  Theory  of  Natural  Selection. 

npHERK  are,  beyond  doubt,  myriads  of  animals  and 
plants  living  on  this  little  planet  of  ours.  Suffice 
it  to  say  that  in  the  various  collections  of  insects  alone 
there  are  to  be  numbered,  to  say  the  least,  some 
250,000  different  species,  each  of  vi^hich  in  turn  bears 
invariable  characteristics  (called  also  specific  marks) 
peculiarly  its  own. 

Whence  these  numerous  animals  and  plants? 

One  might  answer,  the  chicken  from  the  egg,  the 
egg  from  the  chicken  ;  and  the  first  egg  or  chicken 
came  directly  from  the  hand  of  God.  In  other  words, 
it  might  be  held  that  all  the  different  species  of  ani- 
mals and  plants  were  originally  produced  by  God, 
such  as  we  see  them  today.  But  besides  this  answer 
another  explanation  might  be  given.  For,  one  could 
say  that  in  the  beginning  God  created  but  a  few 
species  of  animals  and  plants,  which  in  the  course  of 
ages  were  transformed  into  a  countless  multitude  of 
others,  until  they  finally  reached  their  present  stage 
of  development.  Neither  of  these  theories,  as  we  shall 
point  out  in  a  subsequent  chapter,  runs  counter  to  the 

(8) 


DARWIN  S  THEORY  OF  NATURAI.  SELKCTION.     9 

postulates  of  our  religion.  For,  the  latter  only  main- 
tains, but  with  unqualified  determination,  that  no 
species  of  animal  or  plant  exists  which  is  not  indebted 
for  its  existence  to  the  Creator  of  all  things.  As  tc 
the  rest,  faith  is  silent,  leaving  us  completely  in  the 
dark  concerning  the  manner  in  which  the  animals  and 
plants  of  today  came  into  being,  by  directly  or  indirectly 
coming  from  the  creative  hand  of  God. 

But,  be  this  as  it  may  be,  Darwin  defended  the 
latter  hypothesis  and  held  that  the  present  species  of 
plants  and  animals  have  not  always  been  the  same, 
but  turned  out  to  be  "the  lineal  descendants  of  some 
few  beings  which  lived  long  before  the  first  bed  of  the 
Cambrian  system  was  deposited."  ^)  In  his  "Origin 
of  Species"  Darwin,  moreover,  admitted  that  the  first 
species  were  originally  produced  by  a  Creator,  an 
opinion,  which,  it  is  true,  he  rejected  in  later  years.^) 

1  "Origin  of  Species,"  New  York,  (Science  edition,  1902), 
p.  314. 

2)  In  his  Autobiography  Darwin  writes  as  follows:  "When 
thus  reflecting  I  feel  compelled  to  look  to  a  first  cause  having 
an  intelligent  mind  in  some  degree  analogous  to  that  of  man, 
and  I  deserve  to  be  called  a  Theist.  This  conclusion  was 
strong  in  my  mind,  as  far  as  I  can  remember,  when  I  wrote 
the  Origin  of  Species,  and  it  is  since  that  time  that  it  has 
very  gradvially,  with  many  fluctuations,  become  weaker.  But 
then  arises  the  doubt,  can  the  mind  of  man,  which  has,  as  I 
fully  believe,  been  developed  from  a  mind  as  low  as  that  pos- 
sessed by  the  lowest  animals,  be  trusted  when  it  draws  such 
grand  conclusions?  I  cannot  pretend  to  throw  the  least  light 
on  such  abstruse  problems.  The  mystery  of  the  beginning  of 
all  things  is  insoluble  by  us;  and  I,  for  one,  must  be  content 
to  remain  an  Agnostic."  (The  Life  and  Letters  of  Charles 
Darwin,  edited  by  his  son  Francis  Darwin,  vol.  I,  p.  282). 

In  his  "Origin  of  Species"  Darwin  wrote:    "To  my  mind 
it  accords  better  with  what  we  know  of  the  laws  impressed  on 


lO  DARWINISM   AND   EVOLUTION. 

Now,  in  order  to  explain  this  gradual  change  of 
species,  Darwin  advanced  his  so-called  theory  of 
natural  selection. 

What  do  we  understand  by  this  theory? 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  various  breeds  of 
horses  and  of  dogs  have  not  always  been  as  they  are  at 
present.  They  have  been  changed  by  man  making 
them  subservient  to  his  wants  and  to  his  fancy.  Those 
animals,  whose  conditions  have  been  ameliorated  by 
the  change,  were  selected  by  the  breeders  as  sub-breeds, 
and  thus  by  degrees  the  various  domestic  races  sprang 
into  existence.  '  'The  accumulative  action  of  selection, 
whether  applied  methodically  and  quickly,  or  uncon- 
sciously and  slowly,  but  more  efficiently,"  is  the 
"predominant  power,"  to  which  the  domestic  races 
owe  their  origin.  ^) 

Darwin  imagined  that  a  similar  process  is  repeated 
in  nature  independently  of  man's  influence.  He  at- 
tempts to  show  that  there  is  an  innate  tendency  in  all 
plants  and  animals  to  vary  in  every  direction  and  to 

matter  by  the  Creator,  that  the  production  and  extinction  of 
the  past  and  present  inhabitants  of  the  world  should  have 
been  due  to  secondary  causes,  like  those  determining  the 
birth  and  death  of  the  individual.  When  I  view  all  things 
not  as  special  creations,  but  as  the  lineal  descendants  of 
some  few  beings  which  lived  long  before  the  first  bed  of 
the  Cambrian  system  was  deposited,  they  seem  to  me  to 
become  ennobled"  .  .  .  "There  is  grandeur  in  this  view  of 
life,  with  its  several  powers,  having  been  originally  breathed 
by  the  Creator  into  a  few  forms  or  into  one ;  and  that,  while 
this  planet  has  gone  cycling  on  according  to  the  fixed  law 
of  gravity,  from  so  simple  a  beginning  endless  forms  most 
beautiful  and  most  wonderful  have  been  and  are  being 
evolved."  (p.  314  and  316). 
1)     "Origin  of  Species,"  p.  73. 


DARWIN'S  THEORY  OF  NATURAI.  SBI^ECTION.  1 1 

accommodate  themselves  in  structure  and  habits  to 
the  external  conditions  and  environments  on  which 
they  so  vitally  depend,  such  as  climate,  food,  locality 
and  so  forth.  In  fact,  all  differences  ^^blend  into  each 
other  by  an  insensible  series.'^  ^)  Now,  it  is  absolutely 
impossible  that  all  animals  appearing  in  this  world 
can  reach  the  state  of  maturity  and  propagate  their 
kind.  One  single  codfish,  for  instance,  is  able  to 
produce  9,000,000  eggs  in  a  season.  Whence  the  food 
for  so  many  individuals?  An  entire  ocean  would  not 
be  large  enough  to  harbor  all  the  fish  that  within  a 
few  years  would  be  brought  to  life  by  one  such  prolific 
codfish  and  its  numerous  offspring.  Even  in  case  of 
the  elephant,  which  "is  reckoned  the  slowest  breeder 
of  all  known  animals",  we  should  have,  according  to 
Darwin,  "after  a  period  of  from  740  to  750  years  .... 
nearly  nineteen  million  elephants  alive,  descended 
from  the  first  pair."  2)  Consequently,  most  of  the 
young  are  doomed  to  destruction  before  they  have 
reached  the  stage  of  complete  development,  and  thus 
"a  struggle  for  existence  inevitably  follows  from  the  high 
rate  at  which  all  organic  beings  tend  to  increase."  ^) 
In  this  struggle  for  existence  those  individuals  "hav- 
ing any  advantage,  however  slight,  over  others,"  will 
survive,  whilst  any  variations  "in  the  least  degree 
injurious"  will  be  "rigidly  destroyed."  ^'This  pre- 
servation of  favorable  individual  differences  and  variations 
and  the  destruction  of  those  which  are  injurious ^^ ^  ^)  is 
the  definition  Darwin  himself  gives  of  natural  selection, 

^)  "Origin  of  Species,"  p.  87. 

2)  "Origin  of  Species,"  p.  103. 

3)  "Origin  of  Species,"  p.  101. 
*)  "Origin  of  Species,"  p.  121. 


12  DARWINISM    AND    EVOIvUTlON. 

which,  in  fact,  he  considers  "not  the  exclusive"  but 
"the  most  important  means  of  modification."  ^)  The 
selected  variations  are  transmitted  and  accumulated 
through  "the  strong  principle  of  inheritance,'^^  ^) 

Hence,  as  Geikie  interprets  Darwin,  "varieties  at 
first  arising  from  accidental  circumstances  may  become 
permanent,  while  the  original  form  from  which  they 
sprang,  being  less  well  adapted  to  hold  its  own,  per- 
ishes. Varieties  become  species,  and  specific  differ- 
ences pass  in  a  similar  way  into  generic.  The  most 
successful  forms  are  by  a  process  of  natural  selection 
made  to  overcome  and  survive  those  that  are  less  for- 
tunate, 'the  survival  of  the  fittest'  being  the  general 
law  of  nature. ' '  ^) 

To  mention  only  one  example,  by  way  of  illustration, 
the  giraffe  is  said  to  have  developed  in  the  following 
manner  : 

"By  its  lofty  stature,  much  elongated  neck,  fore- 
legs, head  and  tongue,  the  giraffe  has  its  whole  frame 
beautifully  adapted  for  browsing  on  the  higher  branch- 
es of  trees.  It  can  thus  obtain  food  beyond  the  reach 
of  the  other  Ungulata  or  hoofed  animals  inhabiting 
the  same  country;  and  this  must  be  of  great  advantage 
to  it  during  dearth."  ^)  Hence  the  individuals  of  the 
nascent  giraffe  "which  were  the  highest  browsers  and 
were  able  during  dearths  to  reach  even  an  inch  or  two 
above  the  others,  will  often  have  been  preserved ;  for 
they  will  have  roamed  over  the  whole  country  in  search 
of  food.  .  .  .   These  will  have  intercrossed  and  left  off- 

1)  "Origin  of  Species,"  p.  30. 

2)  "Origin  of  Species,"  p.  185. 

3)  "Text-Book  of  Geology,"  London,  1893,  3d  ed.,  p.  666. 

4)  "Origin  of  Species,"  p.  302. 


DARWIN'S  THKORY  OF  NATURAI.  SEIvECTION.  1 3 

Spring,  either  inheriting  the  same  bodily  peculiarities, 
or  with  a  tendency  to  vary  again  in  the  same  manner ; 
while  the  individuals  less  favored  in  the  same  species, 
will  have  been  the  most  liable  to  perish.  .  .  .  Natural 
selection  will  preserve  and  thus  separate  all  the  supe- 
rior individuals,  allowing  them  heely  to  intercross, 
and  will  destroy  all  the  inferior  individuals.  By  this 
process  long-continued,  which  exactly  corresponds 
with  what  I  have  called  unconscious  selection  by  man, 
combined,  no  doubt,  in  a  most  important  manner  with 
the  inherited  effects  of  the  increased  use  of  parts,  it 
seems  to  me  almost  certain  that  an  ordinary  hoofed 
quadruped  might  be  converted  into  a  giraffe."  0 

From  this  amusing  account  of  ludicrous  details  it 
readily  appears  that  there  existed  way  back  in  the 
misty  ages  of  the  past  certain  long-necked  and  long- 
legged  ruminants.  By  chance,  of  course,  the  neck 
and  legs  of  some  were  an  inch  longer  than  the  neck 
and  legs  of  others.  Now,  who  can  fail  to  see  the  in- 
calculable advantages  which  in  times  of  dearth  result 
from  the  structure  of  a  frame  singularly  adapted  for 
browsing  on  high  trees?  Hence,  those  ruminants 
which  could  reach  highest  luckily  survived  and  trans- 
mitted the  coveted  quality  of  their  peculiar  elasticity 
to  their  offspring,  while  the  rest  perished  miserably. 
Thus,  with  not  a  little  predilection,  has  Mother  Nature 
chosen  and  cherished  the  giraffe  of  today. 

The  theory  of  natural  selection,  then,  comprises  the 
following  propositions :  "All  organisms  have  offspring. 
These  offspring  have  an  innate  and  universal  tendency 
to  variation  from  the  parent  form.  These  variations 
are  indeterminate  —  taking  place  in  all  directions. 
1)     "Origin  of  Species,"  p.  303-304. 


14  DARV/INIvSM   AND    KVOIyUTlON. 

Among  the  offspring  thus  varying,  and  between  them 
and  other  contemporary  organisms,  there  is  a  perpetual 
competition  and  struggle  for  existence.  The  variations 
which  happen  to  be  advantageous  in  this  struggle  — 
from  some  accidental  better  fitting  into  surrounding 
conditions  —  will  have  the  benefit  of  that  advantage 
in  the  struggle.  They  will  conquer  and  prevail ; 
whilst  other  variations  less  advantageous,  will  be 
shouldered  out  —  will  die  and  disappear.  Thus,  step 
by  step,  Darwin  imagined,  more  and  more  advantage- 
ous varieties  would  be  accidentally  but  continually 
produced,  and  would  be  perpetuated  by  hereditary 
transmission.  By  this  process,  prolonged  through 
ages  of  unknown  duration,  he  thought  it  was  possible 
to  account  for  the  millions  of  different  specific  forms 
which  now  constitute  the  organic  world. ' '  ^) 

1)  Duke  of  Argyll,  Organic  Evolution,  London,  1898,  p.  79-80. 


Chapter  II. 

Darwin's  Theory  of  Natural  Selection  Refuted. 

VWE  have  seen  what  Charles  Darwin  understands 
by  his  theory  of  natural  selection.  The  question 
next  confronts  us  what  are  we  to  think  of  this  theory?  Is 
natural  selection  or  the  survival  of  the  fittest  in  reality 
the  mainspring  of  specific  evolution,  and  is  such  a 
theory  in  consonance  with  reason  and  experience  ? 

To  many,  it  is  true,  Darwin's  theory  may  at  first 
sight  appear  quite  innocent  and  harmless,  the  more  so 
as  Darwin  does  not  fail  to  make  occasional  but  meagre 
mention  of  a  Creator.  Still,  our  reply  to  the  question 
put  above  is  and  must  remain  a  decidedly  negative  one. 

We  would  remark,  first  of  all,  that  Darwin's  ex- 
planation of  the  origin  of  species  appears  7iaivej  not 
to  say  mythical.  Fleischmann  has  given  expression  to 
this  thought  in  the  following  words  : 

"There  is  in  this  world  a  subordinate  deity,  called 
Variability.  It  is  her  blessed  mood  to  produce  every- 
where minute  changes,  but  why  and  wherefore  she 
cannot  tell.  An  examination  is  introduced.  Natural 
Selection  holds  the  chair  of  chief  examiner.  Only  by 
trial,  which  consists  in  the  struggle  for  existence, 
Natural  Selection  is  able  to  pass  judgment.  Animals 
with  bad  notes  are  doomed  to  destruction,  those  of 
better  ones  are  allowed  to  live.  Darwin  tells  us  that 
we  have  not  been  present  at  the  examination,  much 
less  in  the  private  council  of  Natural  Selection :  but 
we  may  rest  assured  that  Natural  Selection  will  select 

(15) 


1 6  DARWINISM    AND    EVOLUTION. 

the  very  best,  supported,  as  she  is,  by  the  prudence 
gleaned  from  the  experience  of  a  thousand  j^ears.  She 
examines,  criticizes,  praises,  perfects,  degenerates 
organs,  removes  entire  species  from  the  arena  of  this 
world,  preserves  the  more  perfect  species  and  adapts 
animals  to  new  conditions  of  life.  ..."  In  short, 
"wherever  no  reason  can  be  detected  for  the  origin  of 
new  species  and  new  plans  of  organization,  the  deity 
of  Natural  Selection  is  quickly  summoned  to  the 
rescue.  She  draws  out  herbs  to  trees,  grinds  the  eye 
from  three  transparent  laj^ers,  stretches  and  lifts  the 
neck  of  the  giraffe,  and  paints  the  butterfly  'Kallima' 
like  a  dry  leaf,  just  as  the  gods  and  godesses  of  the 
naive  members  of  the  human  race. "  ^) 

Indeed,  besides  bearing  the  stamp  of  puerile 
naivete,  Darwin's  theory  is  altogether  insufficient  in 
itself  and  in  open  contradiction  to  reality. 

For  (i)  when  called  upon  to  offer  explanation  for 
the  origin  and  increase  of  useful  characteristics  and  of 
new  organs  more  perfectly  developed,  the  theory  of 
natural  selection  is  desperately  helpless.  Nor  can  it 
be  otherwise.  For,  by  virtue  of  selection  nothing  new 
can  be  produced.  Selection  with  all  the  world  of 
meaning  which  the  champions  of  evolution  may  force 
into  the  term,  can  merely  choose  between  already  ex- 
isting conditions,  nothing  else.  It  may  destroy,  hut  it 
cannot  create.  Hence  the  origin  of  new  species  with 
new  characteristics  and  organs,  and  all  the  beauty  and 
variety  of  forms  which  constitutes  the  present  world 
of  living  beings  a  world  of  veritable  wonders,  is  the 
work  of  chance,  of  blind  and  impotent  fortuity. 

Such  is  the  logical  conclusion  at  which  radical 
4     "Die  Darwinsche  Theorie,"  Leipzig,  1903,  p.  399. 


THEORY  OF  NATURAL  SELECTION  REFUTED.     I  7 

Darwinism  must  necessarily  arrive.  But  it  is  a  con- 
clusion which,  as  reasonable  men,  we  cannot  but 
uncompromisingly  condemn.  How,  we  ask,  could  all 
the  highly  complex  organs  of  animal  and  plant  life, 
endowed  with  all  their  marvelous  order  and  fitness 
that  puzzles  and  defies  the  puny  intelligence  of  man, 
be  the  issue  of  a  game  of  hazard?  If  so,  we  might  on 
equal  grounds  assert  that  all  the  beautiful  churches 
and  magnificent  cathedrals  which  the  thought  and 
genius  of  Christian  art  erected,  happened  to  take  their 
stand  on  this  earth  of  ours  by  sheer  casuality.  By 
accident,  of  course,  the  blocks  of  stone  and  grains  of 
sand  were  heaped  together  by  the  sportive  winds,  and 
lo,  with  the  desired  effect !  By  chance  the  stately 
arches  wound  their  graceful  turns;  by  chance  the 
towering  steeple  with  its  rising  bulk  crowned  the 
noble  edifice.  All  that  could  be  suitably  employed 
for  the  structure,  its  embellishment  and  style,  survived 
the  great  struggle  between  the  single  stones  and  sands, 
whilst  all  the  rest  was  lost. 

''Year  after  year,"  says  the  Duke  of  Argyll,  "and 
decade  after  decade  have  passed  away,  and  as  the 
reign  of  terror  which  is  always  established  for  a  time 
to  protect  opinions  which  have  become  a  fashion,  has 
gradually  abated,  it  has  become  more  and  more  clear 
that  mere  accidental  variations  and  the  mere  accidental 
fitting  of  these  into  external  conditions,  can  never  account 
for  the  definite  progress  of  correlated  adjustments  and  of 
elaborate  adaptatioris  along  certain  lines,  which  are  the 
most  prominent  of  all  the  characteristics  of  organic 
development.  It  would  be  as  rational  to  account  for 
the  poem  of  the  Iliad,  or  of  Hamlet,  by  supposing  that 
the  words  and  letters  were  adjusted  to  the  conceptions 
2 


1 8  DARWINISM    AND    E^VOLUTION. 

by  some  process  of  natural  selection,  as  to  account  by 
the  same  formula  for  the  intricate  and  glorious  harmo- 
nies between  structure  and  function  of  organic  life. ' '  ^) 
Moreover,  small  accidental  changes y  as  Darwin  sup- 
poses, are  much  too  insignificant  to  be  of  any  real  advan- 
tage to  animals  and  plants  in  their  struggle  for  existence. 
What  is  the  value  and  use  of  an  unfinished  organ?  Of 
what  advantage  will  it  be  to  the  giraffe  if,  after  some 

1)  1.  c.  p.  84.  It  is  true  that  Darwin,  at  least  in  his  Origin 
of  Species,  did  not  admit  these  implications.  He  even  says 
(p.  190):  "I  have  hitherto  sometimes  spoken  as  if  the  varia- 
tions were  due  to  chance.  This,  of  course,  is  a  wholly  incor- 
rect expression,  but  it  serves  to  acknowledge  plainly  our 
ignorance  of  the  cause  of  each  particular  variation."  This 
admission,  however,  does  not  change  the  theory  itself.  Very 
significant  in  this  connection,  is  what  Darwin  says  in  his 
autobiography,  written  in  1876  ....  "The  old  argument  from 
design  in  Nature  .  .  .  fails  now,  that  the  law  of  natural  selec- 
tion has  been  discovered  .  .  .  We  can  no  longer  argue  that  for 
instance  the  beautiful  hinge  of  a  bivalve  shell  must  have 
been  made  by  an  intelligent  being,  like  the  hinge  of  a  door 
by  man.  There  seems  to  be  no  more  design  in  the  variability 
of  organic  beings  and  in  the  action  of  natural  selection,  than 
in  the  course  which  the  wind  blows."  (The  Life  and  Letters  of 
Charles  Darwin,  edited  by  his  son  Francis  Darwin,  vol.  I.  p.279;. 
In  connection  with  this  quotation,  F.  Darwin  adds:  "My 
father  asks  whether  we  are  to  believe  that  the  forms  are 
preordained  of  the  broken  fragments  of  rock  tumbled  from  a 
precipice  which  are  fitted  together  by  man  to  build  his  houses. 
If  not,  why  should  we  believe  that  the  variations  of  domestic 
animals  or  plants  are  preordained  for  the  sake  of  the  breeder? 
But  if  we  give  up  the  principle  in  one  case  ...  no  shadow  of 
reason  can  be  assigned  for  the  belief  that  variations,  alike  in 
nature  and  the  result  of  the  same  general  laws,  which  have 
been  the  ground-work  through  natural  selection  of  the  for- 
mation of  the  most  perfectly  adapted  animals  of  the  world, 
man  included,  were  intentionally  and  specially  guided." 
(The  Variation  of  Animals  and  Plants,  1.  ed.  vol.  II.  p.  431). 


THEORY  OF  NATURAL  SI5I.ECTION  REFUTED.  1 9 

thousand  years,  its  neck  will  be  an  inch  longer  or 
shorter?  What  is  the  use  of  a  wing  which,  consisting 
at  first  of  a  little  stump,  will  only  after  a  million  years 
be  turned  into  an  organ  adapted  for  flying?  Again, 
the  one-sided  development  of  a  single  organ  would  be 
totally  useless,  even  harmful,  unless  at  the  same  time 
the  entire  organism  would  he  subjected  to  a  corresjponding 
change.  But  how  could  so  stupid,  blind  and  powerless 
an  agent  as  natural  selection  accomplish  such  a  mighty 
task,  especially  if  we  take  into  consideration  that  most 
of  the  specific  characteristics  of  animals  are  biologically 
indifferent  and  of  no  advantage  to  either  individual  or 
species  in  their  struggle  for  existence  ? 

(2)  The  theory  of  natural  selection  is  opposed  to  the 
most  evident  facts.  For,  to  begin  with  the  main  point, 
it  supposes  an  infinite  number  of  minute  variations 
and  knows  of  no  well-defined  species.  But  the  natural 
sciences  teach  us  the  very  contrary.  Paleontology,  as 
well  as  our  best  books  relating  to  the  classification  of 
the  present  fauna  and  flora,  prove  conclusively  that 
there  is  no  chaos  of  variations  in  nature,  but  a  well- 
defined  system  of  classes,  families,  genera  and  species. 

There  were  none,  perhaps,  so  well  acquainted  with 
the  structural  characteristics  of  plants  and  animals  as 
the  two  greatest  naturalists  of  the  modern  world, 
Cuvier  and  Linne.  Cuvier  was  principally  concerned 
with  the  extinct  forms  of  life,  while  Linne  studied  the 
living  forms  as  they  exist  now.  But  both  considered 
the  stability  of  species  as  the  fundamental  principle 
of  their  entire  work.  Similarily  Prof.  Heer,  the  in- 
genious author  of  "Primaeval  Switzerland,"  maintains 
"that  in  nature  there  is  exhibited  much  less  of  a 
tendency  towards  the  fusion  of  species  than  of  a  force 


20  DARWINISM    AND    EVOLUTION. 

manifested  to  preserve  specific  characteristics."  "Al- 
though a  species  may  deviate  into  various  forms,  it  nev- 
ertheless moves  within  a  definitely  appointed  circle, 
and  preserves  its  character  with  wonderful  tenacity  dur- 
ing thousands  of  years  and  innumerable  generations, 
and  under  the  most  varied  external  conditions."  ^) 

Consequently  Prof.  Heer  most  decidedly  contradicts 
Darwin's  supposition  of  ''a  perfectly  gradual  and  im- 
perceptible transformation  of  species,  always  going  on 
without  cessation. ' '  ^)  Here  is  a  striking  illustration 
of  Prof.  Heer's  contention!  "The  Swiss  alpine  spe- 
cies," he  says,  "may  be  surrounded  by  species  widely 
different  from  those  of  the  original  mountain-abode  of 
the  plants.  They  may  be  living  under  different  physical 
conditions ;  yet  they  preserve  their  specific  character- 
istics for  thousands  of  years  and  during  a  succession 
of  innumerable  generations ;  and  it  is  impossible  to 
distinguish  the  descendants  of  the  Alpine  drift-flora 
now  living  in  the  Swiss  Alps  from  plants  of  the  drift- 
flora  in  Iceland  and  Greenland."  ^) 

Even  the  numerous  new  species  which,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  made  their  appearance  in  the  course  of  the 
long  geological  periods  were  as  stable  and  invariable 
as  we  find  them  today.  "In  the  Jurassic  rocks,"  says 
the  Duke  of  Argyll,  "we  have  a  continuous  and  un- 
disturbed series  of  long  and  tranquil  deposits  —  con- 
taining a  complete  record  of  all  the  new  forms  of  life 
which  were  introduced  during  these  ages  of  oceanic 
life.  And  those  ages  were,  as  a  fact,  long  enough  to 
see  not  only  a  thick  (1300  feet)  mass  of  deposit,  but 

1)  "The  Primaeval  World  of  Switzerland."     London  1876. 
vol.  II.,  p.  284. 

2)  1.  c,  p.  282. 

3)  1.  c.  p.  283. 


THEORY  OF  NATURAI.  SELECTION  REFUTED.    21 

the  first  appearance  of  hundreds  of  new  species.  These 
are  all  as  definite  and  distinct  from  each  other  as 
existing  species.  No  less  than  1850  new  species  have 
been  counted  —  all  of  them  suddenly  born  —  all  of  them 
lasting  only  for  a  time,  and  all  of  them  in  their  turn 
superseded  by  still  newer  forms.  There  is  no  sign  of 
mixture,  or  of  confusion  or  of  infinitesimal  or  of  inde- 
terminate variations."  ^) 

These  testimonies  could  be  multiplied  without  end. 
Indeed,  we  are  unable  to  comprehend  how  men  like 
Prof.  Plate  can  deny  the  existence  of  sharply  defined 
species  and  can  call  "variability"  a  fundamental 
phenomenon  in  the  world  of  organisms.  The  very 
contrary  is  true. 

Nor  is  natural  selection,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  in 
any  way  able  to  produce  new  specific  properties.  This 
has  been  clearly  demonstrated  by  the  great  botanist 
Hugo  de  Vries.  His  principle  reasons  '^)  may  be  sum- 
marized as  follows : 

a)  Statistics  bear  witness  to  the  fact  that  in  con- 
sequence of  variability,  the  properties  of  plants  do  not 
change  except  in  two  directions,  namely  as  to  "plus 
and  minus. ' '  Existing  characteristics  may  be  increased 
or  reduced,  but  not  changed  into  something  new. 

b)  The  progressive  development  of  the  single 
specific  marks  is  not  at  all  unlimited.  If  conditions 
are  favorable,  2 — -3,  if  ordinary,  3 — 5  generations  are 
quite  sufiicient  for  the  change.  Further  selection,  if 
constantly  applied,  at  best  results  in  preserving  the 
changes  brought  about,  but  never  increases  them. 

1)  1.  c.  p.  147. 

2)  Hugo  de  Vries,  "Die  Mutationstheorie,"  Leipzig,  1901, 
voL  I.  p.  83  ff. 


22  DARWINISM   AND   EVOLUTION. 

c)  Bach  selection  is  succeeded  by  a  corresponding 
regression,  which  is  the  more  marked,  the  greater  the 
change  produced  by  selection.  Moreover,  the  regres- 
sion itself  invariably  tends  toward  the  original  specific 
characteristics.  As  soon  as  the  influence  of  a  constantly 
applied  selection  ceases,  the  race  or  variety  produced 
by  that  selection  loses  its  stability  and  invariably  re- 
turns to  the  specific  form  from  which  it  was  derived. 
The  retrogressive  change  is  accomplished  within  the 
same  time,  as  was  needed  for  the  opposite  process, 
that  is, within  a  few  generations. 

Consequently,  in  the  face  of  such  reasons  and  facts 
we  are  forced  to  reject  Darwinism,  in  as  far  as  it  assigns 
natural  selection  as  the  prime  cause  of  specific  evolution. 
For  this  theory,  besides  being  at  variance  with  facts, 
is  totally  insufficient  in  itself;  because  in  its  futile 
attempt  to  furnish  an  explanation  of  the  origin  of 
useful  characteristics  and  of  the  order  and  harmony  so 
dominant  in  the  world  of  living  beings  it  must  have 
recourse  to  chance. 


PART  II. 

THE  GENERALIZATION   OF   DARWIN'S    THEORY 
AND  OUR  ATTITUDE  TOWARDS  IT. 


Chaptkr  III. 
HaeckePs  Monism. 

TN  the  preceding  chapters  we  drew  the  chief  outlines 
of  the  first  and  foremost  meaning  of  Darwinism, 
and  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  the  proposals  of  a 
theory  presumptuous  enough  to  set  up  natural  selec- 
tion as  the  principal  agency  in  the  development  of 
species  cannot  possibly  be  accepted.  ''Natural  selec- 
tion, or  Darwinism,"  says  Conn,  "is  almost  every- 
where acknowledged  as  insufficient  to  meet  the  facts 
of  nature,  since  many  features  of  life  cannot  be  ex- 
plained by  it."  ^)  Even  the  renowned  zoologist.  Prof. 
August  Weismann  of  Freiburg,  who  once  upheld  the 
^'omnipotence  of  natural  selection"  with  the  enthusiasm 
of  a  zealous  advocate,  is  slowly  beating  a  retreat  and 
has  been  practically  led  to  acknowledge  the  '  'impotence 
of  natural  selection".  The  well-known  botanist, 
Strassburger,  too,  but  a  short  time  ago  a  staunch  de- 
fender of  natural  selection,  has  assumed  a  decidedly 
aggressive  attitude.  Dr.  Hans  Driesch  even  ventures 
so  far  as  to  write  in  the  Biologisches  Centralhlatt:  "Dar- 
1)  "Evolution  of  To-day",  New  York  and  London,  1887, 
page  203. 

(23) 


24  DARWINISM    AND    EVOLUTION. 

winism,  like  that  other  curiosity  of  our  century,  the 
philosophy  of  Hegel,  is  a  thing  of  the  past;  both  are 
variations  of  the  same  theme,  'how  an  entire  genera- 
tion can  be  hoodwinked';  and  neither  of  them  exactly 
tends  to  give  succeeding  ages  a  very  high  opinion  of 
our  passing  centur\'. "i)  And  in  another  article  he 
adds:  ''For  a  longtime  has  so-called  Darwinism  reaped 
unmerited  applause ;  though  from  the  very  outset  men 
of  judgment  (Wiegand)  declared  and  in  the  course  of 
events  frequently  repeated  that  this  theory  was  posi- 
tively insufficient  and  in  point  of  logic  shrouded  in 
obscurity.  However,  not  only  earnest  inquirers  are 
fascinated  by  these  inadequate  attempts,  but  also 
others  who  are  influenced  not  so  much  by  a  scientific 
impulse  as  by  an  indefinite,  incomprehensible  liberal- 
ism— a  vague  craze  for  revelation,  if  we  be  allowed  to 
use  the  term.  And  what  was  the  result  of  this  fasci- 
nation ?  That  Darwinism  was  treated  rather  as  a  sort 
of  new  religion  than  as  a  subject  of  scientific  import. 
It  was  followed  by  results  usually  consequent  upon 
such  an  innovation  and  created  champions  who  would 
have  done  honor  to  Mohammed — luckily  the  only 
weapons  at  their  disposal  being  paper  and  ink.  In 
the  opinion  of  the  intelligent,  however,  Darwinism 
has  long  since  run  its  course,  and  the  eulogies  sound- 
ing its  merits  have  proved  to  be  its  funeral  dirges,  in 
accordance  with  the  adage,  ^De  mortuis  nihil  nisi  bene^ 
(Say  nothing  but  good  of  the  dead),  containing  at  the 
same  time  an  implicit  confession  that  all  pleas  in  its 
defense  are  but  abortive  attempts. ' '  ^) 

1)  Vol.  XVI,  p.  355. 

2)  Vol.  XXII,  p.  182. 


HAECKEL  S   MONISM.  25 

Thus,  in  the  opinion  of  competent  judges,^)  Dar- 
win''s  theory  of  natural  selection^  because  of  its  total 
insuificienc}^  is,  or  ought  to  be,  repudiated  by  every  rea- 
sonable man.  That  it  will  be  relegated  to  oblivion, 
with  little  or  no  chance  of  revival,  seems  to  be  only  a 
matter  of  time.  In  the  interim,  leaving  it  to  moulder 
in  its  grave,  and  bidding  farewell  to  the  devotees  who 
mourn  its  premature  demise,  we  turn  our  attention  to 
the  second  meaning  of  Darwinism,  derived  proximately 
from  the  principle  of  natural  selection  as  generalized  es- 
pecially by  Ernest  Haeckel  to  a  philosophical  system 
and  made  to  be  the  moving  factor  of  a  new  world-view. 

I .  What  is  in  Short  the  Gist  of  this  Wori.d- 
ViEW?  ^^ Realistic  monism''^  is  the  proud  name  with 
which  the  "German  Darwin"  and  his  abettors  have 
christened  this  child  of  their  fancy.  Let  us  call  it  by 
its  right  name  from  the  very  start.  The  word  "mon- 
ism" is  derived  from  the  Greek  /i6ws,  which  means  an 
undivided  whole.  Hence,  realistic  monism  means 
that  all  things  in  existence  constitute  an  undivided  be- 
cause identical  whole.  "Monism",  says  Haeckel,  "is 
neither  extremely  materialistic  nor  extremely  spirit- 
ualistic, but  resembles  rather  a  union  and  combination 
of  these  opposed  principles,  in  that  it  conceives  all 
nature  as  one  whole,  and  nowhere  recognizes  any  but 
mechanical  causes.  Binary  philosophy,  on  the  other 
hand,  or  dualism,  regards  nature  and  spirit,  matter 
and  force,  inorganic  and  organic  nature,  as  distinct 
and  independent  existences. ' '  ^) 

1)  Other  testimonies  as  to  the  decadence  of  the  Darwinian 
theory  are  found  in  Dennert's  book  "At  the  Deathbed  of  Dar- 
winism" (translated  by  E.  V.  O'Hara  and  John  H.  Peschges), 
German  Literary  Board,  Burlington,  la.,  1904. 

2)  "Evolution  of  Man",  vol.  II,  p.  461. 


26  DARWINISM   AND   EVOLUTION. 

Originally  Darwin  had  merely  lowered  the  barriers 
separating  the  various  species  of  plants  and  animals. 
Haeckel  decrees  that  all  difference  between  God  and  the 
world,  betiveen  matter  and  life,  between  body  and  soid, 
must  henceforth  and  forever  cease.  "With  unlimited 
freedom  the  universe  extends  itself  through  all  the 
domains  of  time  and  space.  It  is  matter  in  its  con- 
tinuous motion,  which  by  separation  and  mixture  rises 
to  higher  forms  and  functions,  and  by  evolution  and 
dissolution  describes  a  circle  without  beginning  and 
without  end"  (Strauss).  From  chaos  and  confusion, 
from  an  infinite  world  of  atoms  spinning  about  without 
order  and  purpose,  the  entire  universe  has  steadily 
evolved  itself  under  the  guidance  of  eternal  and  un- 
changeable laws.  The  earth  teeming  with  the  life, 
luxuriance  and  wealth  of  its  three  kingdoms,  and  sub- 
jected to  the  sway  of  man,  its  noble  and  powerful  lord, 
is  nothing  else  than  an  issue  of  material  forces. 
Thought  and  volition,  learning  and  virtue,  culture  and 
civilization,  all  the  final  outcome  of  an  eternal  struggle 
for  existence,  of  a  perpetual  survival  of  the  fittest. 

Haeckel  himself  has  characterized  his  monism  in 
a  lecture  delivered  at  Altenburg  in  1893.^)  The  real 
creator  of  this  organic  world  is  in  all  probability  an 
atom  of  carbon,  a  tetrahedron  composed  of  four  primi- 
tive atoms.  The  human  soul  is  but  the  sum  of  those 
physiological  functions  whose  elementary  organs  are 
represented  by  the  microscopic  ganglion  cells  of  our 
brain.  In  this  respect  the  human  soul  is  identical 
with  the  lowest  infusoria.     Consciousness  is  but  the 

1)  According  to  a  resume  given  by  the  "liberal"  Protes- 
tant writer  Mr.  Stead  (confer  "Stimmen  aus  Maria-Laach", 
vol.  48,  p.  575). 


haeckel's  monism.  27 

meclianical  action  of  the  ganglion  cells  and  as  such  is 
to  be  reduced  to  the  physical  and  chemical  processes 
in  its  plasma.     It  follows  from  these  dogmas 

(i)  that  the  belief  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul, 
which  during  life  inhabits  the  body  and  leaves  it  at 
the  moment  of  death,  is  a  superstition  fondly  cherished 
by  the  credulous,  but  owing  to  the  rapid  strides  of 
monistic  philosophy  out  of  favor  with  all  friends  of 
science ; 

(2)  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  personal  immor- 
tality; for  the  only  soul  which  man  possesses  is  noth- 
ing else  than  an  intricate  mechanism  of  nervous 
activity.  With  the  decomposition  of  the  nervous  sub- 
stance, the  soul,  too,  disappears.  But  this  is  not  all. 
Not  only  has  man  no  soul,  the  monist  proudly  vaunts, 
but  the  universe  has  no  God — and  Christianity  is  only 
an  aggregate  of  antiquated  dogmas,  drawn  from  a  store- 
house of  impossible  and  silly  myths.  Mysticism  means 
the  ruin  of  reason,  and  rather  than  let  this  come  to 
pass,  may  all  mythological  fables,  miracles,  revela- 
tions, religious  extravagances  and  beliefs  be  flung  to 
the  wind  without  further  ado!  The  very  idea  of  a 
personal  God  has  been  rendered  untenable  by  the  pro- 
gress of  the  monistic  knowledge  of  nature,  and  the 
obsolete  concept  is  doomed  to  lose  its  prestige  in  the 
domain  of  truly  scientific  philosophy  even  before  the 
end  of  the  nineteenth  century.  The  God  of  Christi- 
anity, so  it  appears,  is  a  gaseous  vertebrate,  while,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  only  God  acknowledged  by  the 
monist  is  the  infinite  sum  of  all  atomic  forces  and 
ether  vibrations. 

II.  But  few  words,  I  believe,  will  be  needed  to 
state    our  position   regarding  this  hind   of  Darwinism, 


28  DARWINISM    AND    EVOLUTION. 

It  is  true,  in  his  preface  to  the  history  of  man's  devel- 
opment (ed.  1874),  Haeckel  maintains:  "In  the  tre- 
mendous battle  for  civilization  in  which  we  have  the 
good  fortune  to  fight,  we  cannot  bring  a  more  potent 
ally  to  struggling  truth  than  anthropogeny  (science 
of  man's  development).  For  this  is  the  heavy  artil- 
lery in  the  battle  for  truth.  Long  lines  of  dualistic 
sophisms  fall  powerless  beneath  the  chain-shot  of  the 
monistic  artillery.  The  superb  palace  of  the  Roman 
hierarchy,  the  powerful  castle  of  infallible  dogma  col- 
lapses like  a  house  of  cards.  Whole  libraries  of  ec- 
clesiastical wisdom  and  sophistry  dwindle  into  nothing- 
ness when  brought  to  light  by  the  history  of  develop- 
ment. ' '  But  such  senseless  outbursts  of  the  prophet 
of  Jena  should  make  no  impression  on  a  sober  mind. 
To  a  Catholic  the  matter  is  plain.     For 

( 1 )  Realistic  monism  denies  the  existence  of  a  personal 
Creator  and  the  immortality  of  the  human  soul.  Haeckel 
himself  declared  that  these  two  ideas,  being  antagonis- 
tic to  his  world-view,  can  in  no  wise  be  adjusted  to 
the  monistic  system. 

(2)  Realistic  monism  maintains  that  the  development 
of  the  universe  with  all  in  it  that  is  and  lives,  the  human 
mind  not  excluded,  is  due  to  a  fortuitous  concourse  of 
atoms,  and  that  all  hass  prung  and  risen  from  the 
unfathomable  ab3^ss  of  chaos. 

True  scientists  like  Mr.  James  Hall,  the  famous 
geologist,  find  even  in  the  laws  of  inorganic  nature 
the  evident  footprints  of  a  Creator's  beneficence 
and  wisdom.  Sa3^s  Mr.  Hall  in  his  magnificent  work: 
'  'The  changes  here  enumerated  are  but  a  few  among 
the  great  series  of  changes  which  have  brought  the 
surface  of  the  earth  into  its  present  condition;  which 
have  formed  the  mountain  chains,  excavated  the  deep 


HAKCKEIv'S    MONISM.  29 

valleys,  or  piled  up  among  its  successive  strata  mate- 
rials fitted  for  our  use  and  instruction.  Every  suc- 
cessive change  has  left  its  monuments,  upon  which  is 
recorded  the  history  of  the  past:  that  history  shows 
the  operation  of  a  uniform  law,  the  influence  of  a 
mighty  design  in  the  construction  of  the  stupendous 
fabric  on  which  we  exist.  And  though  we  are  not 
disposed  to  say,  that  the  Creator  has  through  all  ages 
been  fashioning  and  preparing  the  earth  for  the  abode 
of  man,  or  storing  up  its  mineral  treasures  for  his  use 
alone,  we  can  yet  see  the  operation  of  his  divine  law 
and  recognize  in  its  harmonious  adaptation  the  result  of 
eternal  Beneficence  and  Wisdom.'^) 

(3)  Realistic  monism  uproots  the  most  elementary 
principles  of  the  moral  order.  Human  liberty  no  longer 
exists.  There  is  no  conscience,  no  moral  law,  either 
human  or  divine,  no  retribution,  no  avenger.  The 
social  instincts  of  animals  form  the  primary  source  of 
morals  for  man.  I^ike  proud  Prometheus  of  old, 
monism  boldly  hurls  defiance  into  the  very  face  of 
God,  and  says: 

"Here  seated  I  form  beings 

Like  unto  mine  image, 

To  suffer,  to  weep, 

To  rejoice  and  be  happy 

And  to  contemn  thee 

As  I  do."  —Goethe, 

Haeckelism  is  therefore  the  main.stay  of  anarchy 
and  social  democracy. 

**....  Cross  destroyers 
Shatter  also  royal  crowns, 
And  the  smoke  of  charred  temples 
Circles  up  from  burning  thrones.^' 

—  Weber's  Dreizehnlinden. 

1)    "Geology  of  New  York",  vol.  IV.,  1843,  p.  525. 


3C  DARWINISM   AND   KVOI.UTION. 

How  much  more  splendid,  uniform  and  majestic  is 
the  Christian  world-view,  recognizing  in  God  the  be- 
ginning and  end  of  all !  With  consolation  and  blessing 
it  hovers  like  an  angel  of  peace  over  this  valley  of 
tears,  gently  pressing  into  the  hands  of  each  weary 
pilgrim  the  triple  key  of  faith,  hope  and  love,  which 
alone  unlock  the  portals  of  the  great  land  of  promise. 
We  know,  therefore,  what  we  are  to  think  of  Dar- 
winism in  its  second  acceptation.  A  doctrine  which 
applies  the  Darwinian  theory  of  natural  selection  to  the 
universe  is  directly  and  in  every  respect  opposed  to  the 
Christian  ivorld-view,  and  ^s,  therefore,  to  be  rejected. 

It  is  sad  to  acknowledge  that  the  atheist  of  Jena 
has  almost  everywhere  gained  so  powerful  an  influence. 
Even  of  late  this  has  become  strikingly  manifest  on 
the  occasion  of  his  70th  birthday,  and  in  the  Free- 
thinkers' Congress  at  Rome.  On  the  other  hand,  we 
may  rest  assured  that  his  reputation  and  influence  will 
not  long  survive  him.  In  spite  of  a  number  of  truly 
valuable  discoveries  due  to  his  researches,  Haeckel's 
name  and  fame  have  lost  much  of  the  regard  they 
once  commanded  in  the  world  of  leading  scientists. 
In  fact,  he  is  a  scientific  swindler  and  visionary,  an 
adroit  manipulator  and  unscrupulous  manufacturer  of 
facts,  if  such  be  needed  for  the  support  of  his  theories. 
It  is  well  known  that  in  the  first  edition  of  his  "Natural 
History  of  Creation,"  Haeckel  had  three  copies  of  the 
same  cliche  printed  side  by  side,  designating  the  first 
of  the  three  perfectly  similar  figures  as  the  embryo  of 
a  dog,  the  second  of  a  chick,  and  the  third  of  a  turtle. 
Prof.  W.  His  at  Leipzig  discovered  the  fraud  and  reso- 
lutely declared  "that  the  procedure  of  Prof.  Haeckel 
is  and  remains  a  frivolous  play  with  facts,  even  more 


haeckbl's  monism.  31 

dangerous  than  his  play  with  words The  latter 

is  open  to  universal  criticism,  but  the  former  can  be 
detected  only  by  the  specialist;  and  it  is  all  the  more 
unpardonable,  since  Haeckel  is  conscious  of  the  ex- 
tensive influence  he  exercises.  I^et  others  honor  him 
as  their  active  and  reckless  party  leader;  in  my 
opinion  he  has,  through  his  mode  of  procedure, 
renounced  all  rights  of  being  numbered  as  an  equal 
among  earnest  investigators."^) 

We  shall  in  the  course  of  our  essay  draw  attention 
to  other  inventions  of  Haeckel 's  fertile  fancy.  Suffice 
it  to  recall  the  unhappy  fate  of  HaeckeVs  famous 
Bathyhius,  at  the  discovery  of  which,  by  Huxley, 
Haeckel  triumphantly  exclaimed :  ''Now  we  are  en- 
abled to  reduce  the  phenomena  of  life  to  very  simple 
forms,"  (complex  masses  of  slime  brought  up  in  sea 
dredgings).  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Bathybius  Haeckelii 
proved  to  be  no  living  being  whatsoever,  but  only  an 
ordinary  inorganic  precipitate.  Such  things  are  not 
easily  forgotten.  HaeckeVs  monism  itself  has  been  felt 
to  be  a  defeat.  Prof.  Hensensays:  "We  can  hardly 
conceive  of  anything  more  barren  and  unfertile  than 
Haeckel' s  monism.  He  might  have  spared  us  this 
defeat." 

"O  their  speech  is  only  rustling, 

As  of  winds  or  waters  wild ; 
Revelation  came  to  mortals 

Through  the  teaching  of  a  child." 

—  Weber's  D7-eizehnlinde?i. 

1)    Fleischmann,  "Descendenztheorie,"  p.  10. 


PART   III. 

THE    APPLICATION    OF   DARWIN»S   THEORY   TO 

MAN  AND  OUR   ATTITUDE   TOWARDS   IT, 

OR  THE   TRUE   ORIGIN  OF  MAN'S 

SOUL    AND    BODY. 


Chapter  IV. 
"Man  a  Higher  Beast." 

"TTHB  question  of  questions  for  mankind  —  the 
problem  which  underlies  all  others,  and  is  more 
deeply  interesting  than  any  other  —  is  the  ascertain- 
ment of  the  place  which  man  occupies  in  nature  and 
of  his  relations  to  the  universe  of  things.  Whence 
our  race  has  come,  what  are  the  limits  of  our  power 
over  nature  and  of  nature's  power  over  us,  to  what 
goal  we  are  tending,  are  the  problems  which  present 
themselves  anew  and  with  undiminished  interest  to 
every  man  born  into  the  world,  "i)  Such  are  the 
words  with  which  Huxley  puts  before  his  readers  the 
question  of  man's  relation  to  animals. 

Huxley  is  right  in  emphasizing  its  importance. 
For  the  question  of  man's  origin  is  not  only  one  of  the 
deepest  interest  to  our  intellect,  but  also  of  vital  signifi- 
cance for  our  moral  life.  It  decides  our  end  and  destiny. 

What  is  the  origin  of  man  according  to  Darwin's 
principle  of  natural  selection  ?  Darwin  himself  makes 

i)     Huxley,  "Man's  Place  in  Nature,"  Humboldt  ed.,  p.  213. 
(32) 


**MAN    A   HIGHER   BEAST."  33 

answer  to  this  question  in  the  following  terms  :  "He 
who  is  not  content  to  look,  like  a  savage,  at  the  phe- 
nomena of  nature  as  disconnected,  cannot  any  longer 
believe  that  man  is  the  work  of  a  separate  act  of  crea- 
tion. He  will  be  forced  to  admit  that  the  close  resem- 
blance of  the  embryo  of  man  to  that,  for  instance, 
of  a  dog  —  the  construction  of  his  skull,  limbs  and 
whole  frame  on  the  same  plan  with  that  of  other  ( ! ) 
mammals  ....  and  a  crowd  of  analogous  facts  —  all 
point  in  the  plainest  manner  to  the  conclusion  that 
man  is  co-descendant  with  other  mammals  of  a  com- 
mon progenitor."  In  fact,  from  Darwin's  point  of 
view  man  originally  derived  his  existence  from  a  lower 
animal  —  of  course,  at  the  judicious  guidance  of  blind 
and  impotent  natural  selection.  For,  "man  incessantly 
presents  individual  differences  in  all  parts  of  his  bodj^ 
and  in  his  mental  faculties."  .  .  .  He  "tends  to  in- 
crease at  a  greater  rate  than  his  means  of  subsistence  ; 
consequently  he  is  occasionally  subjected  to  a  severe 
struggle  for  existence, and  natural  selection  will  have 
effected  whatever  lies  within  its  scope."  ^)  Maii'^s  in- 
tellectual^ powers  and  moral  faculties  are  also  due  to 
natural  selection.  "The  first  foundation  or  origin  of 
the  moral  sense  lies  in  the  social  instincts,  including 
sympathy,  and  these  instincts  no  doubt  were  primarily 
gained,  as  in  the  case  of  the  lower  animals,  through 
natural  selection. ' '  ^) 

Darwin  even  claims  to  recognize  in  '  'the  dim  re- 
cesses of  time"  a  physical  portrait  (rather  caricature) 
of  man's  progenitors.   *  'The  early  progenitors  of  man, ' ' 

1)  "The  Descent  of  Man,"  New  York,  (Science  edition) 
1902,  p.  781. 

2)  <*The  Descent  of  Man,"  p.  788. 

3 


34  DARWINISM   AND   EVOLUTION. 

he  says,  "must  have  oeen  once  covered  with  hair,  both 
sexes  having  beards;  their  ears  were  probably  pointed 
and  capable  of  movement ;  and  their  bodies  were  pro- 
vided with  a  tail,  having  the  proper  muscles  .  .  .  The 
intestine  gave  forth  a  much  larger  caecum  than  that 
now  existing.  The  foot  was  then  prehensile,  judging 
from  the  condition  of  the  great  toe  in  the  foetus  ;  and 
our  progenitors,  no  doubt,  were  arboreal  in  their 
habits,  and  frequented  some  warm,  forest-clad  land. 
The  males  had  great  canine  teeth,  which  served  them 
as  formidable  weapons.  At  a  much  earlier  period  .  .  . 
the  eye  was  protected  by  a  third  eyelid  or  nictitating 
membrane.  At  a  still  earlier  period  the  progenitors  of 
man  must  have  been  aquatic  in  their  habits,  for  mor- 
phology plainly  tells  us  that  our  lungs  consist  of  a  modi- 
fied swim-bladder,  which  once  served  as  a  float."  ^) 

Haeckel's  description  of  man's  progenitors  is,  of 
course,  still  more  accurate.  He  and  his  friends,  as, 
for  instance,  Wiedersheim,  have  carefully  measured 
the  length  of  the  alimentary  canal  of  their  ape-an- 
cestors, and  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  it 
was  much  more  capacious  than  now  and  that  they 
subsisted  exclusively  upon  vegetables.  They  testify, 
moreover,  to  the  fact  that,  not  unlike  Polyphemus  of 
old,  their  worthy  sires,  besides  having  two  eyes  look- 
ing sideways  (which  Polyphemus  did  not  have),  could 
boast  of  another  presumably  huge  one  in  the  middle 
of  their  noble  foreheads ! 

Haeckel,  too,  is  perfectly  acquainted  with  the 
twenty-one  stages  which,  as  he  maintains,  constitute 
the  history  of  the  human  species.  But,  as  Conn  re- 
minds us,  "it  is  needless  here  to  enumerate  these  stages, 

1)     "The  Descent  of  Man,"  p.  215. 


"man  a  higher  beast."  35 

for  little  by  little  has  it  become  evident  that  most  of 
them  were  guesses,  or  at  least  founded  on  very  insuffi- 
cient data.  Of  these  twenty-one  stages  more  than  half 
have  been  'proved  to  he  wrong  and  in  regard  to  some  of 
the  others  it  is  questionable.  This  attempt  of  Haeckel, 
made  with  such  boldness  as  almost  to  inspire  belief,  is 
thus  a  failure.''  ^) 

Huxley,  who  almost  ten  years  before  the  publica- 
tion of  Darwin's  ''Descent  of  Man"  applied  the  prin- 
ciple of  natural  selection  to  the  human  species,  com- 
pletes the  description  of  man's  progenitors  by  sketching 
a  vivid  picture  of  their  struggle  for  existence.  They 
were  born  into  the  world,  multiplied  without  limita- 
tions, and  died  at  the  side  of  the  mammoth  and  the 
buffalo,  the  hyena  and  the  lion,  whose  life  and  habits 
in  no  way  differed  from  their  own.  The  weakest  and 
most  maladroit  perished,  while  the  tough  and  cunning 
specimens  survived.  Life  was  only  the  felicitous  out- 
come of  an  incessant  struggle  with  death,  and  outside 
the  narrow,  but  temporary,  barriers  of  the  family 
fierce  and  unrelenting  warfare,  carried  on  between  the 
individual  and  the  class,  was  the  natural  and  normal 
state  of  existence;  while  the  species  'man'  was  drift- 
ing and  battling  like  the  rest  with  the  general  current 
of  development,  keeping  his  head  above  water  as  best 
he  could,  heedless  of  the  whence  and  the  whither. 

In  the  struggle  for  existence,  therefore,  it  was  the  good 
fortune  of  the  human  species  to  cope  successfully  tvith  its 
''^co-animaW  and  through  a  constant  survival  of  the 
fittest,  to  develop  step  by  step  from  mere  sensation  to 
intelligence  and  reason,  from  blind  instinct  to  morality 
and  virtue  into  a  higher,  a  nobler  —  beast. 

1)    1.  c.  p.  149. 


36  DARWINISM   AND   EVOLUTION. 

"At  the  origin,  monkey  and  man  were  but  one,  a 
division  takes  place,  the  fissure  has  grown,  has  become 
an  abyss  .  .  .  like  the  canons  of  the  Colorado  . . .  which 
sooner  or  later  will  become  impassable  by  the  disap- 
pearance, on  the  one  hand,  of  the  present  anthropoids, 
and  on  the  other,  of  the  lowest  human  races,  and  will 
leave  man  isolated  and  majestic,  proclaiming  himself 
with  pride  the  king  of  creation. ' ' 

"Ivet  us  not  blush,  then,  for  our  ancestors;  we  have 
been  monkeys,  as  those  formerly  have  been  reptiles, 
fish,  nay  worms  or  crustaceans.  But  it  was  a  long 
time  ago,  and  we  have  grown;  evolution,  I  say,  has 
been  very  prodigal  of  its  favors  in  the  struggle  for 
existence,  she  has  given  all  the  advantages  to  us. 
Our  rivals  of  yesterday  are  at  our  mercy,  we  let  those 
perish  that  displease  us,  we  create  new  species  (?)  of 
which  we  have  need.  We  reign  over  the  whole  planet, 
fashioning  things  to  our  will,  piercing  the  isthmus, 
exploiting  the  seas,  searching  the  air,  annulling  dis- 
tance, wringing  from  the  earth  her  secular  secrets. 
Our  aspirations,  our  thoughts,  our  actions,  have  no 
bounds.     Everything  pivots  around  us. "  0 

1)  Topinard,  "The  Last  Steps  in  the  Genealogy  of  Man," 
Annual  Report  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  Washington, 
1890,  p.  693. 

In  another  passage  of  the  same  paper  Topinard  has  the 
following  characteristic  phrases:  "We  have  descended,  then, 
from  the  monkeys,  or  at  least  everything  appears  as  if  we 
have  descended  from  them.  From  what  monkey  known  or 
unknown?  I  do  not  know:  No  one  of  the  present  anthropoids 
has  assuredly  been  our  ancestor.  From  several  monkeys  or 
a  single  one  ?  I  do  not  know;  and  also  do  not  know  yet  if  I 
am  monogenistic  or  polygenistic."  Poor  fellow!  Nor  can  we 
tell  you.  Perhaps  Dr.  Friedenthal  could.  For  he  maintained 
of  late:  "We  do  not  only  descend  from  apes,  but  we  are  apes 
ourselves!" 


"man  a  higher  beast."  37 

This  is  the  Darwinian  solution  of  the  problem 
"which  underlies  all  others,"  this  the  answer  to  "the 
question  of  questions  for  mankind,"  this  the  far-famed 
and  frivolous  elenchus  of  evolution,  which  legions  of 
more  or  less  famous  and  infamous  "ape-lads"  have 
trumpeted  to  the  gullible  masses,  amid  the  noisy 
uproar  of  their  own  conflicting  phrases,  as  the  grand 
dogma  ^)  of  modern  science. 

Now,  it  is  clear  as  noonlight  that  a  doctrine  of  this 
description  is  not  only  very  "distasteful"  but  ^'highly 
irreligious'^  and  detrimental  to  the  highest  interests  of  the 
human  race,  involving,  as  it  does,  the  total  wreck  and 
ruin  of  religion.  For,  if  man  is  nothing  else  than  a 
higher  beast,  it  is  plain  that  all  moral  ties  are  severed, 
the  foundations  of  family  and  state  are  undermined, 
and  society  at  large  falls  a  ready  victim  to  the  demon 
of  anarchism  and  complete  demoralization.  So  striking 
and  inevitable  are  these  outrageous  conclusions  that 
even  Darwin^  Haeckel  and  their  accomplices  are  not  slow 
to  avoio  them  in  the  most  frank  and  candid  terms. 
Yea,  in  their  insolence  they  go  so  far  as  to  fill  entire 
pages  with  low  and  trashy  matter,  such  as  no  decent 
man  can  read  without  a  blush. 

1)  Haeckel  considers  this  grand  dogma  as  the  most  splen- 
did result  of  his  doctrine  of  development:  "I  am  entirely 
convinced,"  he  says  in  one  of  his  lectures,  "that  the  science 
of  the  twentieth  century  will  not  only  accept  our  doctrine  of 
development,  but  will  celebrate  it  as  the  most  significant  in- 
tellectual achievement  of  our  time,  for  the  illuminating  beams 
of  this  sun  have  scattered  the  heavy  clouds  of  ignorance  and 
superstition  which  hitherto  shrouded  in  impenetrable  dark- 
ness the  most  important  of  all  scientific  problems,  that  of  the 
origin  of  man,  of  his  true  essence,  and  of  his  place  in  nature." 
(Smithsonian  Institution,  Washington,  1899,  p.  480). 


38  DARWINISM    AND    EVOLUTION. 

It  is,  nevertheless,  absolutely  necessary  to  subject 
the  present  question  to  a  more  careful  examination. 
For,  it  is  in  the  first  place  an  incontestable  fact,  that 
the  belief  in  man's  animal  descent  counts  numbers  of 
advocates  in  all  classes  of  society.  Besides,  the  cham- 
pions of  this  doctrine  —  not  a  few  of  them  professional 
dissemblers  —  are  shrewd  enough  to  shroud  themselves 
in  the  cloak  of  ^ ^modern  science,^''  and  to  inspire  every 
phrase  they  utter  with  a  sincerity  and  love  of  truth  that 
almost  appeals  to  the  heart.  It  is,  indeed,  necessary 
to  tear  the  masks  from  their  insolent  faces,  if  we  wish 
to  recognize  their  real  and  undisguised  features. 

Finally,  the  attempt  has  been  frequently  made  to  im- 
pose upon  the  public  and  especially  upon  the  Catholic 
public  by  asserting  that  modern  science  has  proved  at 
least  one  fact  beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt,  namely, 
that  the  body  of  man  descended  from,  the  ape. 

Let  us,  accordingly,  ask  once  more :  What  are  we 
to  think  of  man^s  animal  descent  ? 

Man  is  composed  of  soul  and  body,  and  so  the 
question  naturally  falls  into  two  heads,  each  of  which 
deserves  careful  attention  and  calls  for  a  separate 
discussion. 

I.  Are  there  any  proofs  for  the  animal  descent  of 
manh  soul  f 

II.  Has  science,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  established  the 
animal  descent  of  man'^s  body% 


Chapter  V. 
The  Origin  of  Man's  Soul. 

pROF.  Haeckel  himself  has  obliged  us  in  summariz- 
ing the  chief  arguments  in  favor  of  the  animal 
descent  of  the  human  soul.  This  he  has  done  in  an 
admirable  discourse  delivered  at  the  fourth  Internatio- 
nal Congress  of  Zoologists  at  Cambridge,  England, 
August  26,  1898.  The  title  of  the  lecture  reads,  ^^On 
our  ^present  knowledge  of  the  origin  of  man. ^^  The  lec- 
ture, originally  printed  at  Bonn,  has  also  been  put 
before  the  American  public  by  the  Smithsonian  Insti- 
tution, 1)  in  accordance  (!  ?)  with  its  motto  :  "For  the 
increase  and  diffusion  of  knowledge  among  men." 

At  present,  only  that  part  of  Haeckel' s  discourse  is 
of  interest  to  us  in  which  he  adduces  his  "impregnable" 
arguments  in  support  of  the  theory  that  man's  soul 
sprang  from  the  soul  of  the  ape. 

"The  wonderful  'soul  of  man,'  "  Haeckel  begins, 
"was  thought  to  be  a  peculiar  being,  and  today  it 
seems  to  many  impossible  that  it  should  have  been 
historically  developed  from  the  'soul  of  the  ape!'  But, 
in  the  first  place,  the  wonderful  discoveries  of  compara- 
tive anatomy  {anatomy  of  the  soulf]  during  the  last  ten 
years  informs  us  for  the  first  time  that  the  minute  as 
well  as  the  gross  structure  of  the  brain  of  man  is  the 
same  as  {ought  to  be:  is  quite  different  from"]  that  of  the 
anthropoid  apes,   the  unimportant  {ought  to  he:  very 

1)     Annual  Report,  Washington,  1899,  pp.  461-480. 
(39) 


40  DARWINISM   AND   EVOI.UTION. 

important']  difference  in  shape  and  size  of  single  parts 
that  exist  between  the  two  being  less  \_ought  to  be:  much 
greater]  than  the  corresponding  difference  between  the 
anthropoid  and  the  lowest  apes  of  the  old  world.  .  .  . 

^^ Secondly y  comparative  ontogeny  [development  of  the 
individual]  teaches  us  that  the  very  high  complex 
brain  of  man  has  developed  from  the  same  rudimentary- 
form  as  that  of  all  other  (!)  vertebrate  animals.  .  .  . 
[  What  has  this  to  do  with  the  soul  f] 

^^  Thirdly  J  comparative  physiology  shows  us  by  obser- 
vation and  experiment  that  the  total  functions  of  the 
brain,  even  consciousness  and  the  so-called  higher 
mental  faculties  \_the  so-called  higher  mental  faculties  are 
not  functions  of  the  brain]  together  with  reflex  acts,  are 
in  man  preceded  by  the  same  physical  and  chemical 
phenomena  as  in  all  other  (!)  mammals. 

^'Fourthly,  .  .  .  we  learn  from  comparative  pathology 
that  all  so-called  'mental  diseases'  \_ought  to  be:  diseases 
of  the  brai7i]  in  man  are  determined  by  material 
changes  in  the  material  of  the  brain  just  as  they  are 
in  the  nearest  related  mammals. ' ' 

Having  enumerated  these  clinching  "arguments," 
Prof.  Haeckel  throws  op eri  another  gate  of  his  ^ ^proof- 
factory^  \-''  An  unprejudiced  and  critical  \_ought  to  be: 
prejudiced  and  uncritical]  comparison  confirms  here 
also  Huxley's  law:  the  psychological  differences  between 
man  and  the  anthropoid  apes  are  less  \_ought  to  be: 
infinitely  greater]  than  the  corresponding  differences 
between  the  anthropoid  and  the  lowest  apes.  And 
this  physiological  fact  [ought  to  be:  dream]  corresponds 
exactly  \_ought  to  be:  not  at  all]  with  the  results  of  an 
anatomical  examination  of  the  differences  found  in  the 
structure  of  the  cortex  of  the  brain,  the  most  important 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   MAN'S   SOUL.  4I 

organ  (!)  of  the  soul.  The  deep  significance  of  this 
information  will  be  clearer  to  us  when  we  consider  the 
extraordinary  differences  in  mental  capacity  that  exist 
within  the  human  species  itself.  There  we  see,  high 
above,  a  Goethe  and  a  Shakespeare,  a  Darwin  and  a 
lyamarck  (^Haeckelf),  a  Spinoza  and  an  Aristotle,  and 
then,  far  below,  a  Veddah  and  an  Akkah,  a  Bushman 
and  a  Patagonian.  The  enormous  difference  between 
these  highest  and  lowest  representatives  of  the  human 
race  is  much  greater  \_ought  to  he:  is  only  a  difference  of 
degree,  not  of  kind'],  than  between  the  latter  and  the 
anthropoid  apes." 

Then  the  clumsy  gates  of  HaeckeVs  proof-factory  close 
for  a  moment.  Arms  akimbo  and  eyes  cast  down  and 
assuming  an  air  of  "wisdom  supernal,"  the  Prophet 
of  Jena  sees  before  him  in  spirit  a  vast  multitude  of 
men  unfortunate  enough  to  spurn  the  sweeping  power 
of  his  iron  logic,  and,  stirred  to  its  very  depth,  the  noble 
soul  of  Haeckel,  whose  only  aim  in  life  has  ever  been 
the  defense  and  spread  of  truth,  is  verily  ''cleft  in 
twain"  by  sadness  and  holy  indignation.  "Since  in 
spite  of  this,"  he  bitterly  complains,  "we  find  that  the 
soul  of  man  is  today  regarded  in  the  widest  circles  as 
an  especial  being  and  as  the  most  important  witness 
against  the  decried  doctrine  of  the  descent  of  man 
from  apes,  we  explain  it  on  the  one  hand  by  the 
wretched  condition  of  so-called  psychology,  and  on 
the  other  by  the  widespread  superstition  concerning 
the  immortality  of  the  soul."     (Sic!) 

But  not  yet  has  Herr  Haeckel  emptied  the  vials  of 
his  wrath.  With  a  look  of  sovereign  contempt  he 
frowns  upon  the  "psychology  of  today,"  which  he 
styles  "a  fantastic  metaphysics,"  teeming  with  "spec- 


42  DARWINISM   AND   EVOLUTION. 

ulative  errors  and  religious  dogmas."  He,  then, 
stigmatizes  most  of  the  so-called  psychologists  of  today 
as  a  set  of  * 'stiff-necked"  ignoramuses,  "who  know 
nothing  at  all  of  the  brain  and  organs  of  special  sense," 
"nothing  at  all  of  the  actual  localization  (!)  of  the 
separate  (!)  mental  faculties." 

Finally,  with  one  last  and  desperate  attempt  the 
arsenal  of  his  "arguments"  reopens,  and  fully  confi- 
dent of  final  victory,  the  enlightened  votary  of  Modern 
Science  breaks  forth  into  another  gush  of  sentiment, 
concluding  his  declamation  with  a  reference  to  one  of 
"the  most  important  discoveries  of  the  19th  century": 
Flechsig's  famous  "seats  of  thought"  to  be  found  in 
the  lobes  of  the  cerebral  hemispheres  and  established 
by  experimental  science  as  "the  onl}^  true  apparatus 
of  our  mental  life. "     (Sic!). 

HaeckeVs  grand  argumentation  is  finished.  And 
what  a  cloak  of  specious  cogency  it  wears!  Indeed,  is 
there  any  one  among  my  readers  who  does  not  tremble 
before  the  formidable  array  of  facts  and  arguments  set 
up  by  a  man  whose  numerous  volumes  have  appeared 
in  many  translations  and  have  reached  impressions 
numbering  100,000  copies  each?  Well, 

"Let  us  see  what  the  learned  wag  maintains 
With  such  a  prodigal  waste  of  brains." 

—  Lofigfellow . 

For  also  Ernest  Haeckel  is  one  of  the  oracular  bigwigs 
of  whom  Goethe  sings: 

"Put  on  a  periwig  of  million  locks, 
Fix  on  thy  foot  a  pair  of  giant  socks : 
Thou  still  remainest  what  thou  art." 

And  what  is  Haeckel  ?  We  have  said  it.  Herr 
Haeckel  of  Jena  is  a  pretentious  humbug,  an  adept  in 


43 

verbal  jugglery,  who  has  always  learned  his  lessons 
well  by  heart,  being  as  blissfully  ignorant  of  logic 
and  psychology  as  the  whilom  monkeys  of  his  noble 
lineage.  To  wreak  his  vengeance  on  the  God  of 
Chri.stianity,  this  apostle  of  atheism  invites  the  masses 
to  set  at  naught  the  Ten  Commandments,  and,  if  pos- 
sible, to  efface  every  vestige  of  religion,  substituting 
in  their  stead  a  new  gospel  of  liberation  —  tJie  moral 
code  of  the  lowest  savage. 

It  is  impossible  to  mention  and  to  discuss  the  low 
moral  conclusions  which  Haeckel  openly  deduced  from 
the  animal  descent  of  the  human  soul.  We  must  con- 
fine ourselves  to  his  argumentation  quoted  above. 

I.  To  speak  about  the  immortality  of  the  human  soul  as 
a  superstition  is  meaningless  twaddle.  Such  language 
ill  befits  a  man  of  more  than  70  years,  tottering  on  the 
brink  of  the  grave,  who  das  done  so  much  to  under- 
mine the  principles  of  Christianity.  The  belief  in  a 
never-dying  soul  is  one  of  the  most  sacred  and  vener- 
able heirlooms  of  the  human  race;  it  is  a  conviction 
based  on  the  spirituality  of  the  soul  and  on  the  infallible 
word  of  revelation.  Such  arguments,  of  course,  are 
passed  off  with  a  disdainful  smile  by  men  of  Haeckel' s 
calibre. 

2.  As  has  been  already  stated,  most  of  the  facts 
alleged  by  Haeckel  are  no  facts  at  all.  In  the  third  part 
of  this  section  we  shall  have  chances  enough  to  verify 
this  statement.  Sufiice  it  here  to  recall  Ranke's  word 
that  the  difference  between  the  brain  of  man  and  that 
of  the  highest  ape  is  considerable  and  that  the  ape's  brain 
is  by  far  inferior  to  the  brain  even  of  a  new-born  child. 
Yes,  the  difference  between  the  brains  of  man  and  ape 
is  still  more  marked  than  that  between  Ranke  and 


44  DARWINISM    AND    EVOLUTION. 

Haeckel  as  scientific  investigators.     Which  certainly 
means  very  much. 

3.  Even  supposing  Haeckel's  four  facts  concerning 
the  brain  to  be  genuine  and  no  creations  of  his  playful 
fancy,  they  would  at  most  indicate  a  certain  similarity 
betiveen  the  brain  of  man  and  that  of  the  ape.  But  to 
infer  that  the  one  owed  its  origin  to  the  other  or  even 
that  the  human  soul  descended  from  the  soul  of  the 
monkey  would  be  illogical.  To  speak  of  the  brain  as 
identical  with  the  soul  is  egregious  nonsense.  The  brain 
is  a  composite  of  matter,  pure  and  simple,  an  intricate 
structure  of  thousands  and  millions  of  cells  and  fibres 
and  of  innumerable,  complex  molecules,  while  the 
soul  is  an  inextended,  simple,  purely  spiritual  substance. 

4.  Next  comes  Flechsigh  grand  discovery — a  huge 
joke  for  a  change.  The  following  reflections  will  make 
the  matter  plain.  In  1894  the  physiologist  Flechsig 
startled  the  scientific  world  by  announcing  that  he 
had  discovered  three  distinct  organs  of  thought,  seated 
in  separate  regions  of  the  brain,  one  serving  for  con- 
sciousness, another  for  the  moral  and  aesthetic  sense, 
and  a  third  for  mental  apprehension  and  ratiocination. 
To  justify  this  psychological  monstrosity  Flechsig 
alleged  the  following  fact :  Two  kinds  of  fibres  must 
be  distinguished  in  the  brain:  fibres  of p)rojection,  which 
connect  the  brain  with  the  muscles  and  end-organs  of 
sense,  and  fibres  of  association  joining  different  parts  of 
the  brain.  Now^  according  to  Flechsig,  there  are 
three  centres  in  the  brain  which  contain  only  fibres  of 
association  and  no  fibres  of  projection.  These  centres 
are,  therefore,  not  directly  connected  with  the  muscles  and 
end-organs  of  sense,   and  —  so  he  concluded  —  Thby 

A.RB   THE   ORGANS   OF   THOUGHT  ! 


THE)   ORIGIN   OF   man's   SOUL-  45 

Another  "graceful  bound"  of  vicious  reasoning! 
And,  I  venture  to  presume  the  reader  has  not  failed  to 
notice  that  Flechsig's  phenomenal  stroke  of  logic  can 
only  be  due  to  a  derangement  of  the  brain.  Otherwise, 
he  will  probably  be  at  a  loss  to  understand  how  a 
scientist  of  our  enlightened  age  could  so  far  forget 
himself  as  to  indulge  in  such  fanciful  conceptions. 

The  facts,  first  of  all,  which  Flechsig  alleges,  are 
dreams.  The  best  anatomists  of  today  declare  that 
there  is  no  region  in  the  cerebral  cortex  which  does  not 
contain  fibres  of  projection  as  well  as  fibres  of  associa- 
tion. Granted,  moreover,  Flechsig's  fictions  happened 
to  agree  with  facts,  the  only  conclusion  he  could  draw 
in  that  case,  without  committing  himself,  would  be 
that  the  different  parts  of  the  brain  are  anatomically 
connected  to  effect,  as  Wundt  has  it,  ^Hhe  functional 
unity  of  separate  cortical  areas.'''' '^)  But  there  can  evi- 
dently he  no  question  of  splitting  the  soid  into  three  parts 
like  a  log  of  wood  and  then  to  identify  it  with  those 
parts  of  the  brain  which  are  not  directly  connected 
with  the  end-organs  of  sensation  and  motion.  In  the 
third  place,  Flechsig  betrays  a  lamentable  ignorance  of 
the  most  elementary  psychological  processes  by  materially 
separating  the  power  of  ratiocination  from  the  other  facul- 
ties of  the  soul.  We  suspect,  indeed,  that  Flechsig's 
and  Haeckel's  "cerebral  lobes  of  ratiocination"  have 
attained  as  much  proficiency  in  logical  thought  as 
those  of  their  cousins  in  Hagenbeck's  menagery. 

Such  are  some  of  the  reasons  that  induce  us  to 
reject  HaecheVs  arguments  for  the  animal  descent  of  the 
human  soid.  The  difference  between  the  soul  of  man 
and  the  soul  of  the  animal  is  one  of  kind,  not  merely  of 

^)   * 'Principles  of  Physiological  Psychology,"  5th  ed.  p.  214. 


46  DARWINISM   AND   EVOI^UTION. 

degree.  Man's  soul  is  an  inextended,  immaterial, 
spiritual  substance,  while  the  soul  of  the  animal  is 
extended  and  intrinsically  dependent  on  the  material 
body.  Man's  soul  survives  the  body,  not  so  the  animal 
soul  which  ceases  to  exist  with  the  body's  dissolution. 

"Only  man  can  do  the  impossible 
He  winnows  the  truth,  he  chooses  and  judges." 

—  Goethe. 

"Made  to  God's  image  and  likeness,"  man's  soul 
is  the  only  being,  here  on  earth,  endowed  with  intelli- 
gence and  free  will;  thus  to  ''let  him  have  dominion 
over  the  fishes  of  the  sea  and  the  fowls  of  the  air.  and 
the  beasts,  and  the  whole  earth." 


Chapter  VI. 

The  <<First  Main  Argument"  for  the  Animal  Descent 
of  Man>s  Body. 

npHE  soul  of  man  does  not  owe  its  existence  to  an 
evolutionary  development  from  the  animal  soul, 
but  is  the  very  breath  of  God,  the  sublime  and  imme- 
diate work  of  his  creative  love. 

This  doctrine  of  paramount  importance  for  the 
higher  destiny  of  man  is  inculcated  by  our  holy  Faith 
in  the  most  vigorous  terms,  confirmed  by  reason  and 
indelibly  written  in  the  heart  of  every  human  being. 
Indeed,  all  that  is  noble  and  lofty  in  our  nature  shud- 
ders at  the  thought  that  we  should  be  no  more  than  a 
better  sort  of  apes.  And  we  must  emphatically  reject 
the  foolish  idea  of  Huxley  that  this  innermost  convic- 
tion of  our  divine  origin  is  due  to  the  "blinding  influ- 
ences of  traditional  prejudice."  This  Darwin  himself 
must  have  felt  when,  at  the  end  of  his  lengthy  work,  he 
strives  to  comfort  and  console  his  readers  by  feigning  to 
bring  them  over  the  ** highly  distasteful"  conclusions 
which  in  the  face  of  logical  sequence  he  could  no  more 
evade.  ' ' For  my  own  part, ' '  Darwin  thinks,  ' '  I  would 
as  soon  be  descended  from  that  heroic  little  monkey 
who  braved  his  dreaded  enemy  in  order  to  save  the 
life  of  his  keeper,  or  from  that  old  baboon  who,  de- 
scending from  the  mountains,  carried  away  in  triumph 
his  young  comrade  from  a  crowd  of  astonished  dogs — 
as  from  a  savage  who  delights  to  torture  his  enemies, 

(47) 


48  DARWINISM   AND   EVOLUTION. 

offers  up  bloody  sacrifices,  practices  infanticide  without 
remorse,  treats  his  wives  like  slaves,  knows  no  decen- 
cy, and  is  haunted  by  the  grossest  superstitions."  ^) 

But  such  ridiculous  phrases  should  not  in  the  least 
affect  a  sober-minded  man.  For,  there  exists  this 
immense  difference  between  the  heroic  little  monkey 
and  the  cruel  and  superstitious  savage  that  the  latter, 
endowed  with  intelligence  and  free  will,  is  possessed 
of  an  immortal  spirit,  while  the  former  is  a  mere 
sense-heiyig  which  will  enjoy  but  a  shortlived  existence. 
While  congratulating  the  enthusiastic  adherents  of 
Darwin  on  their  prided  ancestry,  we,  as  reasonable 
men,  rather  than  claim  descent  from  the  brutal  gorilla 
and  chimpanzee,  can  not  help  looking  back  with  pride 
upon  Adam  and  Eve  as  the  first  progenitors  of  the 
human  race. 

But,  since  the  human  substance  is  a  composite  of 
soul  and  body,  the  question  naturally  presents  itself 
whether,  perhaps,  the  Darwinian  doctrine  might  not  be 
applied  to  the  origin  of  the  human  body.  This  question, 
it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  is  totally  different  from  the 
preceding.  Though  it  is  entirely  out  of  the  question 
that  the  human  soul  has  developed  from  that  of  the 
animal,  still  there  is  no  absurdity  in  the  idea  that  God 
made  use  of  merely  natural  causes  to  prepare,  as  time 
went  on,  the  body  of  man  for  the  soul  that  was,  at 
some  future  date,  to  take  up  its  abode  there.  But 
this  is  a  mere  'possibility  which  on  account  of  the 
intimate  union  of  body  and  soul  does  not  even  seem 
probable.  At  any  rate,  even  if  the  assertion  of  the 
animal  descent  of  the  human  body  would  have  no 
difficulties  to  encounter  in  itself,  still  we  would  prefer 

^)     "The  Descent  of  Man,"  p.  796. 


THE    FIRST   MAIN    ARGUMENT.  49 

to  see  it  corroborated  by  facts,  and  therfore  we  raise 
the  question:  Has  science  proved  that  the  human  body 
descended  from  a  lower  form  ? 

It  would  be  useless  and  impossible  to  offer  our 
readers  that  medley  of  sophisticated  arguments  which 
the  enemies  of  Christianity  have  ingeniously  composed 
in  support  of  their  favorite  theory.  For  our  present 
purpose  we  deem  it  sufficient  to  examine  the  two  main 
proofs  which  above  all  others  are  considered  decisive.^) 

The  first  proof  is  suggested  by  Darwin,  when  he 
says  that  ^^man  still  bears  in  his  bodily  frame  the  indel- 
ible stamp  of  his  lowly  origin.''''  ^)  The  resemblance 
man  bears  to  the  ape  and  the  similar  development  of 
both  is  thought  to  furnish  sufficient  evidence  of  a 
similar  origin.  We  grant  that  many  points  of 
striking  similarity  can  be  traced  in  the  body  of  man 
and  ape.  "As  far  as  structure  is  concerned,"  says 
Ranke,  "the  similarity  between  man  and  the  anthropoid 
apes  is  so  great  that  in  many  points  we  may  call  it 
typical.  And  what  is  true  of  the  structure  is  still  more 
so,  and  often  in  a  higher  degree,  of  their  organic 
functions."  ^)  This  is  the  reason  why  Linne  consid- 
ered man  according  to  his  body  as  the  highest  repre- 
sentative of  the  class  of  mammals.  Indeed,  we  may 
compare  all  the  principal  organs  of  the  human  body 
with  those  of  the  simian  —  as  the  heart,  lungs,  bones, 
muscles,  even  brain  and  eye  —  and  we  shall  invari- 
ably discover  that,  in  a  general  way,  all  are  shaped  and 
moulded  upon  the  same  pattern,  evincing  everywhere  a 
marvelous  harmonj^  in  action  and  congruity  of  parts. 
^)  Cf.  our  paper  ou  ''Zoology  and  the  Origin  of  Man,"  The 
Catholic  Mind,  (Messenger,  New  York),  No.  19. 

2)  "TheDescentof  Man,"  p.  797. 

3)  "Der  Mensch,"  2.  ed.,  vol.  I.,  p.  437. 


50 


DARWINISM    AND    EVOLUTION. 


Buty  we  ask,  does  this  twofold  similarity  of  structure 
and  function  prove  to  evidence  that  man  descends  from  an 
ape  or  any  other  ape-like  mammal?  We  answer:  No! 
and  in  support  of  our  contention  advance  tivo  weighty 
reasons,  before  which  the  alleged  argument  of  similar- 
ity, whether  real  or  fictitious,  must  necessarily  fall. 

(i)  Side  by  side  with  the  similarities,  to  which  a 
world  of  importance  is  accorded  by  the  ''Apostles  of 
Descent, ' '  so  many  points  of  divergence  betray  themselves 
at  every  turn  that  the  attempt  to  prove  a  direct  descent 
of  the  one  from  the  other  looks  much  like  weaving  a 
rope  of  sand. 

The  main  points  of  difference  are,  shortly,  these: 

(a)  The  brain  of  man  exhibits  a  development 
incomparably  superior  to  that  of  the  highest  ape.  This 
fact  appears,  first  of  all,  from  the  dimensions  of  the 
skull-cap  which  encloses  the  brain. 

The  capacity  of  the  skull-cap  of  man  and  ape  is 
shown  in  the  following  table  ^)  taken  from  Ranke  : 


Skull's  Origin. 


0 

/-^ 

B  '"^ 

1^ 

ih 

v^ 

C  3 

D  ^ 

s  SX 

B^ 

>a 

iB 

%m 

<  ^ 

I  GO 

1503 

1260 

I  GO 

1535 

IIGO 

I6 

498 

461 

3 

458 

383 

7 

409 

371 

3 

392 

376 

3 

426 

42G 

I 

406 

1^ 


Bavarian  (male).. 

Bavarian  (female)  .. .. 

Gorilla  (male) 

Gorilla  (female) 

Chimpanzee  (male)  .. 
Chimpanzee  (female) 

Orang  (male) 

Orang  (female) 

1)     1.  c.  vol.  I.  p.  409. 


1780 

1683 

605 

563 

460 

413 

464 


THK    FIRST    MAIN    ARGUMENT.  5 1 

Circumference  of  the  skull  ^ Caucasian 550  mm. 

"  "  "         Negro 510  mm. 

'*  "         "        Gorilla 340  mm. 

"  "         ''        Orang 320  mm. 

Thus  the  skull-cap  of  man  is  about  three  times  as 
large  as  that  of  the  ape,  while  the  circumference  of 
the  ape's  entire  .skull  measures  about  twice  as  much 
as  that  of  man.  Furthermore,  the  human  brain  is  on 
the  average  three  times  heavier  than  the  brain  of  the 
ape,  and  upon  a  close  comparison  of  the  weight  of  the 
body,  we  find  that  in  man  it  is  the  37th  part,  while  in 
the  ape  it  is  only  the  looth  part  of  the  entire  body- 
weight.  This  difference  appears  still  more  striking  if 
the  two  most  prominent  parts  of  the  brain  are  com- 
pared.—  In  this  case,  the  brain  of  man  weighs  16 — 18 
times  more  than  than  that  of  the  ape !  Finally,  the 
number  of  convolutions  which  are  observed  in  the 
ape's  brain,  is  much  smaller  than  in  man,  so  much,  so, 
that  according  to  Wagner's  measurements,  the  brain 
surface  in  man  is  found  to  be  four  times  larger. 2) 

'  'The  face  of  man, ' '  says  Ranke,  *  'slides,  as  it  were, 
down  from  the  forehead  and  appears  as  an  appendix 
to  the  front  half  of  the  skull.  But  the  gorilla's  face, 
on  the  contrary,  protrudes  from  the  skull,  which  in 
return  slides  almost  entirely  backwards  from  the  face. 
By  a  cross-cut  one  may  sever  the  whole  face  from  the 
skull,  except  a  very  small  part  near  the  sockets,  with- 
out being  forced  to  open  up  the  interior  of  the  skull. 
It  is  only  on  account  of  its  protruding,  strongly  de- 
veloped lower  parts  that  the  small  skull-cap  of  the 
animal  can  mask  as  a  kind  of  human  face.'^^  ^) 

1)  1.  c.  vol.  II.  p.  7. 

2)  cf.   Wilhelm    Wundt,    "Physiologische    Psychologie", 
5.  ed.,  1902,  vol.  I.,  p.  289. 

8)     Ranke,  1.  c,  vol.  I.,  p.  401. 


52 


DARWINISM   AND   KVOLUTION. 


In  short :  ^^The  main  differences  between  the  brain 
of  man  and  that  of  apes  lies  in  this  that  in  man  the 
brain  is  much  more  and  the  teeth  much  less  developed 
than  in  apeSy  which,  on  the  contrary,  possess  but  a 
small  brain  and  a  powerful  set  of  teeth. ^) 

(b)  Similarly  remarkable  is  the  difference  in  re- 
gard to  the  limbs  and  the  trunk  of  the  ape.  If  we  suppose 
the  length  of  the  body  to  be  too,  we  have  according 
to  Ranke,  the  following  proportions  :  ^) 


Part  of  the  body. 


Trunk 

Arm  and  hand. 

Iveg 

Hand 

Foot 


Gorilla. 

Chimpan- 

zee. 

50-4 

44.80 

64.9 

67.67 

34-9 

35- 20 

17-4 

23.00 

20.4 

20.5 

Orang. 


44-50 
80.72 

34-72 
22.8 

25-5 


Negro. 


36.27 
45-43 
48.93 
II. 6 

14-5 


Especially  the  trunk  of  the  ape  is  much  more  de- 
veloped than  the  corresponding  part  in  man.  Then  the 
ape  has  much  shorter  legs  and  much  longer  arms  than 
man.  The  reason  is  evident,  since  both  arms  and  legs 
serve  the  ape  as  means  of  locomotion.  It  has  been 
asserted  that  the  anthropoid  apes  while  walking  pre- 
serve an  erect  posture,  just  as  man  does.  This  is  not  so. 
Ranke  assures  us:  "The  ability  of  the  anthropoid  to 
walk  erectly  is  by  no  means  superior  to  that  of  a  danc- 
ing bear  . . .  Brehm  is  perfectly  right  when  he  says  . . . 
that  man  alone  .  .  .  has  an  erect  walk,  no  ape  walks 
upright."  ^)    Finally,  the  ape  is  blest  with  four  hands. 


1)  Ranke,  1.  c,  vol.  I.,  p.  404. 

2)  1.  c,  vol.  II.,  p.  7-8. 

3)  1.  c.  vol.  II.,  p.  32. 


THE   FIRST   MAIN   ARGUMENT.  53 

while  man  has  two  hands  and  two  feet.  May  the 
Darwinians  ever  so  energetically  shake  their  heads  to 
this  statement,  it  is  all  in  vain.  For  only  in  man  the 
hands  are  exclusively  organs  for  grasping  and  the  feet 
exclusively  organs  of  support. 

The  most  striking  differences  between  man  and 
anthropoid  apes  are  summarized  by  Ranke  as  follows : 
"The  gorilla's  head  leaning  forward,  hangs  down  from 
the  spinal  column,  and  his  chinless  snout,  equipped 
with  powerful  teeth,  touches  the  breast-bone.  Man's 
head  is  round,  and,  resting  on  a  free  neck,  balances 
unrestrained  upon  the  spinal  column.  The  gorilla's 
body,  without  a  waist,  swells  out  barrel-shaped,  and 
wheta  straightened  up  finds  no  sufficient  support  on  the 
pelvis;  the  back-bone,  tailless  as  in  man,  but  almost 
straight,  loses  itself  without  nape  or  neck  formation 
properly  so-called  in  the  rear  part  of  the  head  and 
without  protuberance  of  the  gluteal  region  in  the  flat 
thighs.  Man's  body  is  slightly  molded,  like  an  hour- 
glass, the  chest  and  abdomen  meeting  to  form  the 
waist  where  they  are  narrowest;  the  abdominal  viscera 
are  perfectly  supported  in  the  pelvis  as  in  a  plate;  and 
elegance  is  decidedly  gained  by  the  double  S-line, 
which,  curving  alternately  convex  and  concave,  passes 
from  the  crown  through  the  neck  and  nape,  down  the 
back  to  the  spine  and  the  gluteal  region.  The  normal 
position  of  the  gorilla  shows  us  a  plump,  bear-like 
trunk,  carried  by  short,  crooked  legs  and  by  arms 
which  serve  as  crutches  and  touch  the  ground  with 
the  knuckles  of  the  turned- in  fingers.  The  posture  of 
the  body  is  perfectly  straight  in  man,  it  rests  on  the 
legs  as  on  columns  when  he  stands  upright,  and  his 
hands  hano^  down  on  both  sides  always  ready  for  use. 


54  DARWINISM    AND    EVOI.UTION. 

The  gorilla  is  thickly  covered  with  hair,  while  man's 
body  on  the  whole  is  naked."  ^) 

Such  facts  evidently  go  to  show  that  there  exists 
a  considerable  difference  between  the  body  of  man  and 
that  of  the  ape.  On  comparing  the  skeletons  of  man 
and  of  the  anthropoid  ape  (Plate  i)  Ranke  even  goes 
so  far  as  to  say:  "We  may  place  side  by  side  and 
compare  one  bone  after  the  other,  and  we  shall  find 
that  everywhere  the  same  general  form  and  arrange- 
ment prevail.  But  in  particular  there  is  no  bone,  be 
it  ever  so  small,  nay,  not  even  the  smallest  particle  of 
bone,  in  which  the  general  agreement  in  structure  and 
function  would  pass  over  into  real  identity.  By  its 
characteristic  form  we  are  able  to  tell  each  single  bone 
of  man  from  the  respective  bone  of  any  anthropoid  ape 
or  mammal.  In  the  most  general  sense  of  the  word, 
it  is  true,  each  bone  and  organ  of  man  could  be  styled 
"ape-like,"  .  .  .  but  nowhere  does  this  similarity  go 
so  far  that  the  form  peculiar  to  man  would  pass  over 
into  the  form  which  is  peculiar  to  the  ape. '^2)  In 
point  of  fact,  out  of  the  one  hundred  and  twenty-three 
ape-like  forms  which  Wiedersheim  maintained  to  have 
discovered  in  the  human  body,  Ranke  does  not  recog- 
nize a  single  one  as  genuine  ;  and  Virchow  declared 
at  the  Congress  of  Wiesbaden,  that  of  all  animal-like 
forms  in  the  human  body  hardly  more  than  one  de- 
serves attention.  But  even  this  one  is  so  minute  and 
insignificant  that  it  is  not  worth  our  while  to  consider 
it  earnestly.  Indeed,  as  Virchow  says,  ^Hhe  differences 
between  man  and  monkey  are  so  wide  that  almost  any 
fragment  is  sufficient  to  diagnose  them.^^  ^) 

1)     1.  c,  vol.  II.,  p.  213.  2)     1,  c.,  vol.  I.,  p.  437. 

3)     Cf .  Report  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  Washington, 
1889,  p.  566. 


THE)   FIRST    MAIN    ARGUMENT.  55 

Consequently,  if  Darioinians  maintain  that  the  simi- 
larity between  m.an  and  the  ape  is  a  positive  proof  of  their 
common  descent ,  we  are  perfectly  justified  in  returning 
the  argument  by  asserting  that  the  dissimilarity  between 
the  two  proves  that  they  certainly  do  not  descend  from  one 
another. 

(2)  But  we  may  go  still  further.  Let  us  abstract 
for  a  moment  from  the  differences  between  the  body  of 
man  and  that  of  the  ape  and  freely  grant  that  the 
similarity  between  both  is  as  striking  as  Darwinians 
would  have  us  believe.  In  ivhat  case  would  such  a  simi- 
larity prove  descent?  Only  then,  if  no  other  reasonable 
explanation,  but  descent,  would  be  offered  to  account 
for  the  striking  traces  of  resemblance.  For  as  long  as 
I  have  two  equally  probable  explanations  of  a  fact  I 
am  on  no  condition  entitled  to  set  up  either  of  them 
as  the  only  true  one.  Now,  over  and  above  the 
solution  attempted  by  Darwinians  to  explain  the  simi- 
larity between  man  and  ape,  another  may  be  added  still 
more  probable  than  the  one  to  which  our  adversaries 
resort.  We  know  that  the  whole  universe  has  been 
constructed  by  divine  wisdom  and  omnipotence  upon 
a  unique  and  uniform  design  and  that  it  is  destined  to 
lie  subject  at  the  feet  of  man,  its  noble  sovereign,  the 
king  of  the  visible  world.  Should  we  then  be  sur- 
prised to  find  that  man,  the  choicest  jewel  of  the  vis- 
ible creation,  unites  within  himself,  and  in  a  pre-emi- 
nent degree  all  the  splendor  and  perfections  of  the 
inferior  works  of  God  ?  Even  Ranke  did  not  fail  to  re- 
alize at  least  in  part  this  sublime  truth  of  the  Christian 
world- view  when  he  says  :  "We  look  upon  man  as  the 
representative  of  the  entire  animal  khigdom,  because  all 
org-ans   and    forms    of    structure    distributed    among 


56  DARWINISM   AND   EVOLUTION. 

diverse  animals  are  found  focussed  and  centralized  in 
the  microcosm  of  the  human  body."  ^) 

From  all  that  has  been  said  hitherto  it  would  ap- 
pear that  the  first  main  argument  of  Darwinians  brought 
in  support  of  man's  animal  descent  rests  on  rather 
sandy  foundations »  For  (i)  the  difference  between  man 
and  ape  is  so  marked  and  apparent  that  there  can  be 
no  thought  of  a  direct  descent  of  the  one  from  the  other. 
(2)  The  similarity  which  actually  exists  between 
man  and  ape  finds  a  better  explanation  in  the  fact  that 
the  one  self-same  Creator  drew  up  and  executed  the 
plan  of  this  world.  Quite  in  harmony  with  this  plan 
is  the  phenomenon,  that  in  their  general  structure  the 
body  of  man  as  well  as  that  of  the  ape  presents  the 
same  fundamental  idea  of  the  Great  Designer,  yet  so 
that  the  human  body  surpasses  all  the  rest  of  God's 
visible  works  in  beauty  and  perfection.  Here  the 
same  laws  of  proportion  hold  good  that  obtain  in  every 
genuine  work  of  art,  in  which  the  unity  of  the  whole  is 
chastened  and  relieved  by  the  symmetry  of  all  its  parts- 

The  conclusion  reached  in  the  present  chapter  is 
corroborated  by  the  fact  that  there  are  no  ape-like  forms 
among  existing  men.  The  enumeration  of  a  few  data  is 
sufficient  for  our  purpose:^) 

( I )  The  differences  in  bodily  proportions  that  have 
been  observed  in  various  races  of  men,  are  individual 
variations  of  development,  and  in  no  wise  adapted  to 
establish  a  distinction  between  more  and  less  ape-like 
races.  "All  the  hopes  and  efforts  to  discover  a  series 
of  bodily  formations  which  would  lead  from  the  most 
ape-like  savages  to  the  least  ape- like  Europeans,  have 


1)  1.  c,  vol.  II.,  p.  6. 

2)  Cf.  the  Catholic  Mind,  1, 


c,  p.  486—488. 


THK  FIRST  MAIN  ARGUMENT.  57 

till  now  resulted  in  utter  failure. "  0  Very  striking  is 
the  utterance  of  one  of  the  highest  authorities  on  this 
question,  A.  Weisbach,  who  maintains  that  the  ape- 
like forms  of  organs  actually  found  in  some  individ- 
uals are  not  confined  to  a  single  race  or  nation,  but 
spread  and  distributed  over  all  of  them.  Ranke  him- 
self has  found  that  precisely  the  "lowest  savages" 
present  in  their  bodily  proportions  the  furthest  ex- 
treme from  those  of  the  ape. 

(2)  The  so-called  inborn  deformities  or  abnormal 
developments  of  certain  individuals,  as  "haired  and 
tailed"  men,  and  so  forth,  are  very  rare  and  mostly 
due  to  irregularities  in  the  development  of  the  embryo. 
Tailed  ape-men,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  do 
not  exist.  "In  our  own  days  observations  have  fur- 
nished us  with  an  invulnerable  argument  that  no  race 
of  men  with  tails  exists  on  this  earth. "  ^)  The  whole 
fable  is  principally  due  to  the  fact  that  certain  tribes 
have  the  custom  of  adorning  themselves  with  the  tails 
of  animals  or  similar  appendages.  "Certain  forma- 
tions, similar  to  tails  in  their  proper  sense,  that  have 
sometimes  been  found  at  the  end  of  man's  backbone, 
have  been  thoroughly  studied  and  explained  by  M. 
Bartels.  The  conclusions  of  this  author  make  it  evi- 
dent that  all  such  formations  are  genuine  deformities, 
abnormally  developed  remnants  of  the  individual's 
embryonic  life. "  ^)  "Such  deformities  must  be  con- 
sidered as  inborn  diseases."  *) 

Moreover,  Linne's  "homo  ferus"  has  no  existence 

0  Ranke,  1.  c,  Vol.  II,  p.  79. 

2)  Ranke,  Vol.  I,  p.  181. 

3)  Ranke,  1.  c,  Vol.  I,  p.  182. 
^)  Ranke,  1.  c,  Vol.  I,  p.  187. 


'58  DARWINISM  AND  EVOIvUTION. 

in  reality.  Ranke  says  that  it  is  "foolish"  i)  to  be- 
lieve in  this  fiction.  "It  is  humbug  and  fraud"  to 
designate  such  creatures  as  Krao^)  as  missing  links. 
Finally,  the  famous  Cretins  and  Microcephali  are 
pathological  symptoms  and  cannot  be  explained  as 
atavistic  forms.  For,  as  Virchow  argues,  "no  one 
can  maintain  that  the  human  race  was  ever  in  a  con- 
dition analogous  to  the  Microcephali,  as  it  would  have 
perished  before  history  commenced.  No  such  'small- 
brained'  being  is  able  to  procure  independently  the 

necessary  means  of  subsistence "  ^)     In  short, 

Ranke  considers  the  following  proposition  as  an  es- 
tablished fact:  ^^  There  are  at  the  present  day  in  the  en- 
tire human  species  neither  races,  nor  nations,  nor  tribes, 
nor  families^  nor  single  individuals,  which  coidd  be 
designated  zoologically  as  intermediate  forms  between  the 
ape  and  man.''''  ^) 

1)  Rauke,  1.  c,  Vol.  II,  p.  377. 

2)  Ranke,  1.  c,  Vol.  II,  p.  378.  Krao  was  a  young  girl  of 
Siamese  parentage.  Her  body  was  covered  with  hair,  and  she 
was  said  to  have  a  tail  like  an  ape.  Some  ten  years  ago  she 
was  led  through  England  and  Germany,  and  her  appearance 
in  Berlin  and  London  caused  a  considerable  sensation. 

3)  Ranke,  1.  c,  Vol.  II,  p.  389. 
')   Ranke,  1.  c,  Vol.  II,  p.  392. 


Chapter  VII. 

The  *<Second  Main  Argument**  for  the  Animal 
Descent  of  Man*s  Body. 

'PHE  second  main  argument,  adduced  by  Darwinians 
in  support  of  the  animal  descent  of  man's  body, 
is  drawn  from  paleontology.  The  osseous  remains  of 
men  and  apes,  that  for  untold  ages  have  slumbered 
away  deep  down  in  the  bowels  of  the  earth,  in  the 
form  of  petrified  masses,  are  held  to  prove  that  man 
and  ape  are  descended  alike  from  some  great-great- 
grandfather as  their  common  progenitor.  * '  Certainly , ' ' 
as  even  Haeckel  admits,  "the  negative  gaps  which 
we  here,  as  elsewhere,  find  in  paleontological  know- 
ledge, are  very  much  to  be  regretted,  and  immediately 
in  the  primate  stem  they  are  (since  most  of  these 
animals  lived  upon  trees)  greater  than  in  any  other 
groups  of  animals."  ^  But,  in  spite  of  these  gaps,  so 
we  are  told,  a  close  comparison  between  the  skulls, 
molars,  bones  of  the  extremities,  etc.,  hitherto  ex- 
humed, precludes  all  possibility  of  doubt  that  the 
petrifactions  assume  bolder  proportions  of  resemblance 
the  deeper  we  delve  into  the  primitive  history  of  all 
living  beings,  and  the  nearer  we  approach  the  first 
type  from  which  both  man  and  ape  descended. 
Haeckel,  of  course,  in  his  capacity  of  supreme  judge 
of  all  that  pertains  to  this  question,  pronounces  the 
"proof  of  the  bones"  strong  enough  to  settle  the 
question  forever. 
1)   1.  c,  p.  469. 

(59) 


6o  DARWINISM  AND  EVOI.UTION. 

I^et  us  enter  the  charnel-house  of  modern  paleontology y 
bravel}^  repressing  all  the  uncanny  sensations  of  loathing 
that  may  perforce  creep  upon  us.  At  the  entrance  we 
straightway  espy  the  warden  of  skulls,  Ernest  Haeckel. 
In  a  transport  of  delight  he  rivets  his  eyes  on  the 
famous  skull  of  the  ape-man,  Pithecanthropus  erectuSj 
which  Haeckel' s  friend,  Eugene  Dubois,  some  years 
ago  lugged  over  from  Java.  Casting  an  occasional 
glance  of  loving  complacency  at  the  Neanderthal  skull, 
the  curator  of  the  bone-house  goes  into  raptures  at  the 
sight  of  the  treasure  before  him,  and  in  the  deep  seclu- 
sion of  his  heart  evidently  admires  the  low  forehead 
of  his  granduncle,  who,  it  is  said,  reached  the  ven- 
erable age  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  years  ! 

The  skull,  femur  and  molars  of  Pithecanthropus  erec- 
tus,  and  the  Neanderthal  skull-cap,  are,  indeed,  accord- 
ing to  Haeckel's  own  testimony,  the  best  monuments 
to  guarantee  the  animal  descent  of  man's  body.  But 
no  one,  of  course,  is  better  qualified  to  discover  the 
best  monuments  than  Haeckel  himself. 

Let  us  ask,  therefore,  what  is  the  evidence  actually 
furnished  by  these  stray  and  scanty  remnants  ?  — 
(Plate  2.) 

I.  To  judge  from  appearances,  it  is  true,  the 
Java  skull  seems  fo  have  belonged  neither  to  a  man 
nor  to  an  ape.  This  opinion  is  supported  by  the  fact, 
observed  by  Dubois  (!),  that  the  skull-cap  in  question 
is  somewhat  smaller  than  the  medium  between  the 
normal  human  and  simian  skull.  But,  be  it  well  re- 
membered, this  is  the  only  circumstance  which  might 
possibly  wear  the  semblance  of  a  proof.  And  this 
circumstance  is  such  that  Dubois  himself  declares: 
"A  skull  that  in  comparison  with  that  of  the  normal 


THE  SKCOND  MAIN  ARGUMENT.  6l 

man  is  so  small  and  so  ape-like  in  its  form,  that  it  is 
declared  by  not  a  few  anatomists  to  be  the  skull  of  an 
ape,  cannot  be  human."  i)  At  all  events,  opinions 
widely  differ  on  the  character  of  the  skull.  Scientists 
of  the  highest  repute,  with  Virchow  in  the  lead,  ener- 
getically assert  that,  in  all  probability,  the  skidl  belonged 
to  a  real  ape.  In  no  case,  however,  and  on  this  all 
are  agreed  (men  like  Haeckel  and  Dubois  alone  ex- 
cepted), is  the  skull  a  connecting  link  between  man 
and  ape,  but  at  best  one  solitary  member  in  the  long 
succession  of  the  apes'  lineal  descendants.  The  femur, 
it  appears,  is  that  of  a  man,  but  this  proves  little  or 
nothing  at  all,  because  it  was  found  by  Dubois  not  less 
than  fifty  feet  away  from  the  skull.  Consequently,  it 
is  by  no  means  evident  that  skull  and  femur  formed 
part  of  one  and  the  same  original  skeleton.  Finally, 
what  concerns  the  famous  molar,  to  which  a  second 
was  discovered  after  some  time,  Virchow  seriously 
questions  the  affinity  of  the  two  teeth,  adding  that  in 
all  likelihood  neither  of  the  two  belongs  to  that  skull. 
Accordingly  the  third  International  Congress  of  Zoolo- 
gists, at  I^eyden,  1895,  declined  to  accept  Dubois' 
Pithecanthropus  as  "the  long-sought  missing  link  in 
the  chain  of  the  highest  primates".  A  certain  anato- 
mist who  had  been  engaged  in  the  study  of  the  Java 
bone  collection  almost  as  actively  as  Dubois  himself, 
and,  needless  to  mention,  little  inclined  to  look  at 
matters  scientific  from  a  Catholic  point  of  view,  in 
reply  to  my  question  declared  that,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  osseous  remains  were  of  no  demonstrative 

1)  Eugene  Dubois,  ''Pithecanthropus  erectus — A  Form 
from  the  Ancestral  Stock  of  Mankind."  Annual  Report  of 
the  Smithsonian  Institution,  Washington,  1899,  p.  454. 


62  DARWINISM  AND  KVOI.UTION. 

value  whatever,  and  the  whole  story  of  the  man-ape 
nothing  else  than  a  farcical  imposition,  pure  and  simple. 
In  the  light  of  all  that  has  been  said  hitherto,  the 
truth  of  Wasmann's  statement  to  the  same  effect  is 
sufficiently  attested.  He  says:  ''It  is  ....  a  criminal 
sporting  with  the  truth,  out  of  remains  so  incomplete 
and  admitting  so  many  explanations  ....  to  construct 
an  'evident  proof  for  the  animal  descent  of  man,  and 
all  this  with  the  purpose  of  deceiving  a  wider 
public."!) 

2.  We  next  turn  to  take  a  look  at  the  far-famed 
Neanderthal  skull-cap,  giving  it  for  some  moments  our 
undivided  attention,  which,  in  truth,  it  fully  deserves. 
For,  besides  having  occasioned  a  whole  library  of 
volumes  and  of  treatises,  this  skull-cap  has  had  the 
good  fortune  of  finding  its  way  into  museums,  in  the 
shape  of  plaster-cast  facsimiles,  destined  to  impress 
deeply  on  the  mind  of  the  wondering  visitor  the  lesson 
of  his  lowly  origin.  A  cast  of  this  description  is  pre- 
served in  the  grand  museum  of  the  "Public  lyibrary 
of  Milwaukee".  The  inscription  added  to  the  skull 
by  way  of  explanation  is  significant:  "Chellean  period 
(paleolithic)  250,000  years.  'Under  whatever  aspect 
we  view  this  cranium,  whether  we  regard  its  super- 
ciliary ridges,  its  sloping  occiput  ....  we  meet  with 
ape-like  characters,  stamping  it  as  the  most  pithecoid 
of  human  crania  yet  (1863)  discovered.' — Huxley."  2) 

To  produce  a  still  more  effective  impression  on  the 
mind  of  the  admiring  looker-on,  an  artist  has  in  ad- 

1)  1.  c,  p.  297. 

2)  Huxley  says  besides:  "In  no  sense  can  the  Neanderthal 
bones  be  regarded  as  the  remains  of  a  human  being  interme- 
diate between  men  and  apes."  ("Evidence  as  to  Man's  Place 
in  Nature."    Humb.  ed.,  p.  253.)    This,  of  course,  is  left  out! 


THK  SECOND  MAIN  ARGUMENT.  63 

ditioii  appended  a  face,  which  the  real  skull,  as  it  was 
found,  did  not  at  ail  possess. 

What  are  we  to  think  of  the  Neanderthal  skull? 
What  is  the  truth  of  the  case  ? 

Attend  and  be  astounded  ! 

According  to  Schwalbe^)  the  following  table  ex- 
hibits the  main  opinions  that  have  been  defended 
concerning  the  skull: 

I.  The  Neanderthal  skull  is  not  a  typical  one, 
but  a  modified  individual  skull :  ( i )  It  has  been 
artificially  deformed  by  early  obliteration  of  the  cranial 
sutures:  Bernard  Davis,  1867.  (2)  It  belongs  to  an 
idiot:  Blake,  1864;  Charles  Vogt,  1863  and  1867 
(partly);  Pruner-Bey,  1863  (partly);  Hoelder  (1892); 
Charles  Zittel  (1893).  (3)  It  shows  such  a  number 
of  pathological  deviations,  that  the  skull  cannot  be 
regarded  as  the  type  of  a  race:  R.  Virchow,  1872,  and 
J.  Ranke  up  to  this  day. 

II.  The  Neanderthal  skull  belongs  to  a  race  of 
men  still  living. 

( 1 )  It  is  a  very  recent  skull ,  one  that  belongs  to 
a  Mongolian  Cossack  of  the  year  18 14:  Meyer,  1864 
and  1865. 

(2)  It  belongs  to  an  historic  people,  viz.: 

(a)  to  an  old  Celt  or  German:  Pruner-Bey, 
1863; 

(?))  to  an  ancient  native  of  Holland  (Batavus 
genuinus):  R.  Wagner,  1864; 

(c)  to  an  inhabitant  of  old  Friesland:  R.  Vir- 
chow,   1876. 

(3)  It  belongs  to  a  primitive  race,  which  is  con- 

3)    Cf.    "Stimmen    aus    Maria  -  I^aach",    Vol.    LXI   (1901), 
p.  107-108. 


64  DARWINISM  AND  EVOLUTION. 

nected  through  intermediate  forms  with    the   lowest 
race  of  men  in  existence: 

It  has  a  great  similarity  with  the  negroes 

from  Australia:  Huxley,    1863  and  1865; 

Lyell,    1863;    Vogt,    1863    and    1867;    de 

Quarterfages  and  Hamy,  1882. 

(4)  (a)  It  belongs  to   a   primitive  wild  race,  in 

many   points   different   from   the  present 

man:  Schaaffhausen,  1865-1888.     This  is 

the  Neanderthal  race:    Fraipont  and  De 

Lohest,   1887,   and  Fraipont,    1895-1896. 

(6)  This  race  differs  from  the   present   man 

more  than  the  negroes  from  the  white: 

De  Mortillet,  1883. 

III.     The   Neanderthal  skull  belongs  to  a   form 

that  differs  specifically  or  perhaps  generically  from  the 

present  man  :     King,   1864;    Cope,    1893;    Schwalbe, 

1901. 

We  have,  therefore,  no  less  than  three  main  opin- 
ions. The  first  branches  off  into  three  distinct  side- 
vieivs,  professed  by  about  nine  investigators.  The 
second  main  opinion  held  on  the  subject  graciously 
allows  of  four  secondary  hiterpretations.  According  to 
these  four  subdivisions,  which  in  turn  are  again  sub- 
divided, the  skull  belongs  (i)  to  a  Cossack  of  1814, 
(2)  to  an  old  Celt  or  German,  (3)  to  a  prehistoric 
Hollander,  (4)  to  an  inhabitant  of  Friesland,  (5)  to  a 
kind  of  negro,  (6)  to  the  Kanstatt  race,  (7)  to  a  pre- 
historic savage,  (8)  to  the  Neanderthal  race,  (9)  to  a 
prehistoric  negro.  The  third  main  view  has  no  sub- 
divisions, but  has  the  privilege  of  rounding  off  the  list 
to  a  neat  dozen  of  opinions. 

From  this  list  of  conflicting  statements  it  appears 


THE  SECOND  MAIN  ARGUMENT.  65 

at  first  sight  that  almost  any  and  every  story  can  be  read 
into  the  Neanderthal  skidl,  the  final  judgment  evidently 
depending  on  personal  prejudice.  We  may  add  that 
the  famous  skull  could  hardly  have  defeated  the 
fondly-cherished  purposes  of  its  admirers  with  more 
signal  success.  For,  what  concerns  the  long-expected 
and  conclusive  demonstration  the  Neanderthal  skull 
was  destined  to  supply,  all  we  have  to  say  is  that  a 
proof  which  may  serve  to  prop  up  all  possible  contra- 
dictory opinions,  is  no  proof  at  all.  It  is,  indeed,  a 
blessing  of  no  mean  account  that  the  fate  of  the  poor 
skull  at  the  end  of  the  world  will  not  rest  on  the  ver- 
dict of  those  sages.  Otherwise  we  might  expect  to 
see  the  many  claimants  coming  to  blows  for  the  pos- 
session of  that  skull  of  theirs,  just  as  in  the  days  of 
old,  when  famous  Jason  sowed  the  dragon's  teeth  and 
hurled  Medea's  stone  into  the  midst  of  the  giants  that 
arose  from  the  monster's  teeth.  .  .  . 

But  the  most  interesting  feature  of  the  whole  story 
is  that  nothing  at  all  is  known  for  certain  about  the  exact 
spot  where  the  famous  skull  originally  lay.  No  one  has 
ever  seen  the  actual  geological  conditions  of  the  origi- 
nal place  of  the  skeleton.  For  the  bones  were,  in  fact, 
not  seen  in  a  cave  of  the  Neanderthal,  but  in  a  ravine 
on  the  slope  of  the  hill.  Through  the  ravine  water 
had  flown  down  and  had  washed  away  some  material, 
among  which  there  were  also  the  famous  bones. 
Hence,  as  a  number  of  cautious  scientists  stated  from 
the  very  beginning,  it  is  altogether  unclear  whether 
the  bones  were  washed  down  by  the  water  (and  then 
they  w^ould  probably  be  of  a  very  recent  date),  or 
whether  the  bones  have  been  originally  at  the  place 
where  they  were  found.  Thus,  no  one  knows  where 
5 


66  DARWINISM  AND  EVOLUTION. 

the  single  pieces  have  been  before,  and  consequently 
it  is  impossible  to  make  any  positive  statement  concerning 
them,  ''The  whole  significance  of  the  skull  lies  in  the 
fact  that  already  from  the  very  beginning  'the  halo  of 
fair  renown'  was  made  to  celebrate  its  privilege  of 
having  been  imbedded  in  diluvial  soil,  the  formation 
of  which  dates  back  to  the  time  of  the  old  mammals.  "0 
And  despite  all  this,  an  age  of  250,000  years  is  ascribed 
to  the  skull.  This  is  what  we  call  ^^amhignas  in  Thdgus 
spargere  voces^  ^ — in  plain  English,  "rubbing  dust  into 
people's  eyes". 

Moreover,  supposing  that  the  skull  is  actually  a 
paleolithic  deposit,  we  ask:  Who  has  ever  proved  that 
the  paleolithic  period  lies  250,000  years  back?  We 
maintain  that  since  that  period  less  than  25,000  years 
have  elapsed.  Who  would  be  able  to  prove  anything 
to  the  contrary?  Dana  says  correctly:  "All  that  geol- 
ogy can  claim  to  do  is  to  prove  the  general  proposition, 
that  time  is  long  ....  but  it  affords  no  satisfactory 
number.^ ^  And  LeConte  remarks  very  wisely:  "The 
amount  of  time  which  has  elapsed  since  man  first 
appeared  is  still  doubtful.  Some  estimate  it  at  more 
than  a  hundred  thousand  years — some  at  only  ten  thou- 
sand!" Therefore,  even  supposing  that  the  skull  is 
a  paleolithic  fossil,  it  is  a  merely  gratuitous  assertion  to 
attribute  to  it  an  age  of  250,000  years.  But  is  it  really 
true  that  the  Neanderthal  skull  is  a  paleolithic  fossil  ? 
Yes,  if  bold  assertions  could  be  substituted  for  proofs, 
this  question  should  undoubtedly  be  answered  in  the 
afiirmative.  But  this  cannot  be  done,  not  even  in 
order  to  impress  upon  the  mind  of  the  public  much 
cherished  ideas.     Where,  then,   are  the  proofs  that 

1)   Ranke,  1.  c,  vol.  II,  p.  485. 


THK  SECOND  MAIN  ARGUMENT.  67 

give  evidence  of  the  paleolithic  character  of  the  fossil 
in  question?  Well,  everyone  will  agree  that,  in  order 
to  determine  the  period  to  v^hich  a  fossil  like  the 
Neanderthal  cranium  belongs,  we  must  either  find 
together  with  it  or  in  its  neighborhood  some  bones  of 
extinct  animals,  or  some  implements,  whose  age  is 
known,  or  at  least  we  should  know  the  character  and 
age  of  the  layer  in  which  the  relic  was  found. 

Now,  (i)  we  know  positively  that  absolutely 
nothing,  neither  bones  of  animals  now  extinct,  nor 
implements,  have  been  discovered  together  with  the 
famous  skeleton. 

(2)  As  we  have  said  already,  no  one  knows  the 
actual  geological  conditions  of  the  place  where  it  was 
originally  deposited. 

To  all  that  has  been  said  so  far  we  would  add  that 
R.  Virchow  has  given  us  a  description  of  a  skull  found 
in  East  Friesland,  agreeing  with  the  Neanderthal 
skull  "as  perfectly  as  possible".  And  even  to-day, 
he  continues,  people  can  be  met,  especially  in  the 
vicinity  of  Brussels,  going  about  with  a  Neanderthal 
skull  on  their  shoulders. 

Where,  then,  we  ask,  is  that  succession  of  skulls  and 
bones  which  could  furnish  us  trustworthy  evidence  for  the 
animal  descent  of  man  ?  Where  is  that  chain  of  lineal 
descendants  which  unites  the  man  of  to-day  with  the 
common  ancestors  of  man  and  ape?  If,  according  to 
Haeckel's  own  judgment,  the  two  alleged  skulls  are 
the  best  monuments  spared  by  the  ravages  of  time,  to 
tell  mankind  the  story  of  its  humble  origin,  then  we 
ask  again,  what  is  the  only  scientific,  the  only  reasonable 
answer  we  can  make  to  the  question  put  above?  The 
answer  is:  No  such  1.1NE  of  ancestry  exists.     Or 


68  DARWINISM  AND  EVOLUTION. 

have,  perhaps,  all  those  skulls,  which  might  have  been 
capable  of  furnishing  us  some  proofs,  crumbled  to 
decay?  Vain  subterfuge!  No  less  than  thirty  different 
kinds  of  extinct  apes  are  known  to  us,  and  of  the 
ancestors  of  the  human  kind  not  a  single  trace  is  to  be 
found!  These  are  truly  remarkable  facts,  veritable 
riddles,  the  solution  of  which  would  call  for  an  exor- 
bitant expenditure  of  mental  activity  from  the  man 
who  abuses  the  sovereign  gift  of  his  reason  so  far  as 
vainly  to  attempt  forcing  the  reality  into  the  set 
scheme  of  his  preconceived  ideas.  Dana  says  with 
truth,  ....  "of  that  line  which  is  supposed  to 
have  reached  upward  to  man,  not  the  first  link  be- 
tween the  lowest  level  of  existing  man  has  yet  been 
found.  This  is  the  more  extraordinary  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  from  the  lowest  limit  in  existing  men  there 
are  all  possible  gradations  up  to  the  highest,  while 
below  that  limit  there  is  an  abrupt  fall  to  the  ape  level, 
in  which  the  cubic  capacity  of  the  brain  is  one-half 
less.  //  the  links  ever  existed^  their  annihilation  without 
a  relic  is  so  extremely  improbable  that  it  may  be  pro- 
nounced impossible.  Until  some  are  found,  science 
cannot  assert  that  they  ever  existed."  ^) 

Similarly  von  Zittel:  "Much  zeal  has  been  shown 
in  searching  for  the  fossil-ancestors  (of  man),  and  the 
fossil-ape  has  been  studied  with  special  attention. 
At  the  present  day  about  fifteen  genuine,  narrow- 
nosed  fossil-apes  are  known  from  the  tertiary  layers 
of  Europe  and  India,  and  some  broad-nosed  kinds 
from  the  glacial  strata  of  Brazil  and  Argentine.  But 
with  one  exception,  the  Doryopitliecus,  all  of  them 
are  inferior  to  the  three  great  man-like  kinds,  the 
1)    "Manual  of  Geology",  3.  ed.,  p.  293. 


The  second  argument.  69 

orang,  chimpanzee  and  gorilla;  and,  as  is  proved  by 
a  jaw-bone  lately  discovered,  Doryopithecus  stands 
likewise  relatively  low  among  the  so-called  anthropo- 
morphs.  Hence  the  postulate  of  the  doctrine  of  evolu- 
tioUj  the  so-called  proanthropos,  the  missing  link  between 
man  and  ape,  has  not  been  found.'' ^  ^) 

But  it  is  time  to  break  a  lance  with  the  enemy. 
What  paleontology  really  attests  is  that  the  men  of  the 
first  age  known  to  us  were  as  perfect  as  those  of  to-day. 
The  skulls  were  as  large  or  even  more  perfectly  devel- 
oped than  the  skulls  of  historic  times. 

Ranke  gives  the  following  table  of  the  average 
capacity  of  historic  and  prehistoric  skulls: 

Parisian  of  the  12th  century 1532  cbcm. 

Modern  Parisian 1558  cbcm. 

Prehistoric     cave  -  inhabitants     of     Cro- 
Magnon 1590  cbcm. 

Prehistoric  skulls  from  the  cave  L'homme 

mort 1606  cbcm. 

Prehistoric  northern  "Dolmenbauer" 1586  cbcm. 

(Broca.) 
Nor  can  there  be  any  question  of  ape-like  men 
who  possessed  features  more  simian  than  are  charac- 
teristic of  any  race  now  in  existence,  ''Though  the 
fertile  imagination  of  many  a  theorist  on  creation  may 
represent  the  primitive  man  of  Europe  as  a  half-simian 
climber,  who  built  his  nest  on  trees  and  possessed 
over-long  arms  and  short,  yoketoed  legs,  he  appears 
to  us  in  reality,  in  his  many  representatives,  as  a 
member  of  the  well-formed,  peculiarly  beautiful  race 
of  Cro-Magnon."  2) 

It  is  equally  false  that  prehistoric  man  could  not 

0    Ranke,  1.  c.  vol.  II,  p.  504. 
2)   Ranke,  vol.  II,  p.  482. 


70  DARWINISM   AND   EVOI.UTION. 

walk  perfectly  erect.  Collignon  based  his  false  asser- 
tion on  the  retroversion  of  the  knee-joint,  which,  as 
he  maintained,  was  peculiar  to  prehistoric  man.  "But 
Manouvrier  destroyed  this  dream  of  the  animal-like 
inferiority  of  primitive  man.  By  very  exact  measure- 
ments of  a  great  many  tibise,  he  has  shown  that  the 
retroversion  of  those  tibiae  of  the  glacial  period  is  not 
greater,  but  most  decidedly  smaller  than  in  modern 
skeletons. ' '  ^) 

Finally,  we  may  add  that  prehistoric  man,  the 
man  of  the  glacial  period,  was  endowed  with  a  spirit- 
ual intellect  in  no  way  essentially  inferior  to  ours. 
This  fact  is  shown  by  the  human  relics  and  imple- 
ments still  extant.  Near  the  abbey  of  Schussenried 
(not  far  from  the  Lake  of  Constance),  for  instance,  a 
stratum  of  evidently  glacial  character^)  was  uncovered 
in  1866,  "in  which  carved  antlers  of  reindeer,  bodkins 
with  e3^es,  a  smooth -scraped  needle,  fish-hooks,  flints 
in  the  shape  of  lancets  and  saw-blades,  lumps  of  red 
material  for  skin-painting,  ashes,  and  remains  of  char- 

1)  Ranke,  1.  c,  vol.  II,  p.  483. 

2)  Ranke,  1.  c,  vol.  II,  p.  417.— There  is  no  doubt  that 
man  existed  in  the  glacial  period.  **The  glacial  European", 
says  Ranke,  "remains  an  undeniable  fact  of  science"  (1.  c, 
Tol.  II,  p.  502).  Biit  "no  one  has  hitherto  been  able  to  trace 
man  beyond  the  glacial  period"  (Ranke,  1.  c,  vol.  II,  p.  480). 
"In  spite  of  the  very  great  favor  with  which  the  existence  of 
tertiary  man  has  been  accepted,  the  asserted  traces  of  relics 
are  not  sufficiently  guaranteed  to  establish  a  scientific  proof 
for  the  fact  of  his  existence."  "There  is  nothing,  according 
to  Virchow,  opposed  to  the  view  that  man  existed  in  the  ter- 
tiary period,  but  from  the  view  to  the  proof  there  is  a  long 
way.  So  far  that  proof  has  jiot  been  found"  (Ranke,  1.  c, 
vol.  II,  p.  504). 


THK  SECOND  ARGUMENT.  7 1 

coal  were  found  intermingled."^)  Similarly  "the 
ancient  inhabitants  of  the  Dordogne  (cave-men  of 
France)  already  attempted  to  portray  objects  of  the 
outer  world,  such  as  fish,  reindeer,  or  men  in  carvings 
on  horn  and  the  ivory  of  mammoth's  teeth  with  a 
distinctness  and  animation  which  compels  recognition. 
Among  the  horn  implements,  mostly  awls  and  arrow- 
heads with  or  without  barbs,  our  attention  is  attracted 
by  the  occurrence  of  needles,  with  which,  doubtless, 
the  inhabitants  of  the  caves  sowed  together  the  hides 
of  animals."  ^) 

The  very  names — the  Stone  Age,  the  Bronze  Age, 
and  the  Iron  Age,  used  by  the  archeologists  of  Den- 
mark for  the  classification  of  the  early  traces  of  man, 
point  to  the  same  fact.  Indeed,  if  we  pay  due  regard 
to  the  circumstances  in  which  primitive  man  lived — ■ 
and  do  not  forget  that  he  it  was  who  had  to  commence 
the  work  of  civilization — we  must  grant  that  there  is 
no  reason  for  assuming  his  intellectual  inferiority.  In 
this  sense  we  understand  and  accept  the  statement  of 
Le  Conte,  when  he  says:  "The  earliest-known  man, 
the  river-drift  man,  though  in  a  low  state  of  civiliza- 
tion, was  as  thoroughly  human  as  any  of  us."  ^) 

On  this  account,  Branco,  in  his  famous  speech  on 
the  descent  of  man,  delivered  in  the  fifth  International 
Zoological  Congress  held  at  Berlin,  1902,  gives  the 
following  answer*)  to  an  inquiry  about  the  primitive 
ancestors  of  the  human  race:  Man  makes  his  appear- 
ance in  the  history  of  our  earth  as  a  true  homo  novus, 

1)  Peschel,  '*The  Races  of  Man",  New  York,  1898,  p.  39. 

2)  Peschel,  1.  c,  p.  37. 

3)  "A  Compend  of  Geology",  p.  300. 
^)  Cf.  Wasmann,  1.  c,  p.  303. 


^2  DARWINISM   AND   EVOI.UTION. 

and  not  as  a  descendant  of  preceding  generations. 
Most  of  our  present  mammals  are  represented  in  the 
tertiary  period  by  a  long  series  of  fossil  ancestors,  but 
man  appears  all  of  a  sudden  in  the  glacial  period 
without  a  single  tertiary  ancestor  known  to  paleontol- 
ogy. Tertiary  relics  of  man  are  wanting,  and  the 
traces  of  human  activity  that  were  believed  to  be  of 
tertiar}^  origin  are  of  a  ver}^  dubious  nature.  Glacial 
fossils  of  man,  on  the  other  hand,  are  frequently  met 
with.  But  glacial  man  appears  as  a  perfect  homo 
sapiens.  Most  of  those  verj^  ancient  men  possessed  a 
skull-cap  of  which  any  of  us  could  be  proud.  Neither 
arms  nor  teeth  of  glacial  man  were  more  ape-like  or 
longer  than  ours;  no!  glacial  man  ivas  every  inch  a  true 
man.  Hence,  who  was  the  ancestor  of  man  ?  Branco 
answers:  ""Paleontology  has  no  answer  to  that  question. 
She  knows  of  no  ancestors  to  man.''^ 

And  the  renowned  Quatrefages  declares:  "  .  .  .  to 
those  vAio  question  me  upon  the  problem  of  our 
origin,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  answer  in  the  name  of 
science:  I  DO  NOT  KNOW."i)  And  Virchow : 
"In  vain  have  its  adherents  (^.  e.,  of  Darwinism) 
sought  for  connecting  links  which  should  connect 
man  with  the  monkey:  not  a  single  one  has  been  found. 
The  so-called  pro-anthropos  which  is  supposed  to  rep- 
resent this  connecting  link,  has  not  as  yet  appeared. 
No  real  scientist  claims  to  have  seen  him;  hence  the 
pro-anthropos  is  not  at  present  an  object  of  discussion 
for  an  anthropologist.  Some  may  be  able  to  see  him 
in  their  dreams,  but  when  awake  they  will  not  be  able 
to  say  that  they  have  met  him.     Even  the  hope  of  a 

1)    "The  Human  Species"    (The  International  Scientific 
Series,  vol.  XXVIi;,  p.  128. 


THK  SECOND  ARGUMENT.  73 

future  discovery  of  this  pro-antliropos  is  highly  im- 
probable, for  we  are  not  living  in  a  dream,  or  in  an 
ideal  world,  but  in  a  real  one."  ^) 

We  conclude  this  section  with  an  observation  made 
by  Balmes  in  his  "History  of  Philosophy":  ^^What  is 
the  origin  of  the  world  ?  To  solve  this  riddle,  philoso- 
phers have  disputed  without  end  and  invented  an 
endless  number  of  systems;  and  yet,  despite  their 
endeavors,  full  many  centuries  before  Plato  and 
Pythagoras  were  ushered  into  life,  those  grand  and 
simple  words  have  been  transmitted  from  age  to  age: 
'In  the  beginning  God  created  heaven  and  earth';  .  .  . 
and  further  on  an  account  of  the  world's  creation 
follows,  quite  to  the  amazement  of  modern  geologists, 
bewildered  at  finding  such  wisdom  in  a  time-worn 
book,  written  by  an  inhabitant  of  the  desert,  in  a 
lonely  corner  of  the  globe.  What  is  the  origin  of  man? 
Put  this  question  to  philosophy,  and  she  will  answer 
you  with  an  air  of  gallantry;  but  in  that  self-same 
book  it  is  written:  ^The  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the 
slime  of  the  earth;  and  breathed  into  his  face  the  breath 
of  life,  and  man  became  a  living  souV ,''"'  ^) 

1)  "Authropology  in  the  Last  Twenty  Years",  Report  of 
the  vSmithsonian  Institution,  Washington,  1890,  p.  563. 

2)  "Geschichte  der  Philosophie",  p.  179. 


PART  IV. 

THE    THEORY   OF    EVOLUTION   AND   OUR 
ATTITUDE   TOWARDS  IT. 


Chapter  VIII. 

Evolution  and  Faith. 

r\ARWIN'S  Theory  of  the  origin  of  species  cannot 
be  defended.  For  natural  selection,  which,  ac- 
cording to  him,  is  the  primary  agent  in  the  specific 
development  of  plants  and  animals,  is  insufiicient 
in  itself  and  in  open  contradiction  to  most  evident 
facts  of  natural  history.  HaeckeVs  generalization  of 
Darwin^s  theory  of  natural  selection  is  a  philosophical 
and  social  monstrosity,  a  conception  diametrically  op- 
posed to  the  Christian  world-view  and  to  the  religion 
of  God.  Finally,  the  theory  of  manh  animal  descent, 
in  view  of  the  ungrounded  arguments  alleged  in  its 
defense,  cannot  be  admitted.  Both  the  body  and  soul 
of  man  were  directly  created  by  God,  and  not  the 
shadoio  of  an  argument  has  been  traced  in  support  of 
the  animal  descent  of  the  human  body. 

Hence  we  reject  Darwinism  in  its  first  three  ac- 
ceptations. 

It  remains  for  us  to  go  into  the  question  whether 
this  verdict  is  to  be  extended  to  the  theory  of  evolu- 
tion, which,  as  was  stated  above,  is  sometimes  in- 
appropriately styled  "Darwinism". 

(74) 


EVOLUTION  AND  FAITH.  75 

What  do  we  mean  by  the  theory  of  evolution? 
The  theory  of  evolution  is  opposed  to  the  theory  of  con- 
stancy. The  latter  maintains  that  the  species  of 
animals  and  plants  now  in  existence  are  essentially 
unchangeable  and  have  always  been  so  from  the  very 
beginning.  They  were  originally  created  by  God  in 
their  present  state  of  existence.  The  theory  of  evolu- 
tion holds  the  very  opposite  to  be  true,  declaring  that 
the  species  of  plants  and  animals  existing  at  present 
were  not  always  as  they  are  to-day.  They  have  de- 
scended from  other  entirely  different  species,  and  these 
in  turn  from  still  more  primitive  forms,  until  finally 
we  arrive  at  a  more  or  less  limited  number  of  species 
which  were  directly  produced  by  God. 

The  theory  of  evolution  is  evidently  not  identical 
with  Darwin'' s  theory  of  natural  selection.  For  the 
theory  of  natural  selection  says  more  than  the  theory 
of  evolution.  It  pretends  to  offer  an  explanation  of 
how  and  by  what  means  the  species  of  to-day  have 
developed  from  those  that  preceded.  It  would,  con- 
sequently, be  an  abuse  of  the  term  to  brand  the  theory 
of  evolution  with  the  repulsive  epithet  of  ''Dar- 
winism". 

"The  use  of  the  word  Darwinism  in  this  sense", 
says  Wasmann,  *'....  is  based  on  a  principle  illogi- 
cally  mistaking  a  particular  form  of  evolution  for  the 
general  theory  itself.  Forty  years  ago,  when  Darwin's 
theory  of  descent  was  the  only  one  generally  known, 
this  error  may  have  been  pardonable.  To-day  it  is 
not.  It  is  only  for  the  sake  of  defending  prejudices 
that  the  two  terms  'Darwinism  and  Evolution'  are 
used  as  synonyms.  For  the  defenders  of  Darwinism 
resort  to  it  as  a  means  of  popularizing  their  waning 


76  DARWINISM   AND   EVOLUTION. 

theory,  while  the  antagonists  of  evolution,  by  con- 
temptuously stigmatizing  this  doctrine  as  'Darwinism', 
leave  no  means  untried  of  rendering  the  constancy  of 
systematic  species  dubious."  ^) 

We  propose  to  our  readers  three  questions  which 
will  enable  them  to  determine  the  attitude  of  Catholics 
towards  the  theory  of  evolution: 

1.  What  is  the  verdict  of  faith  on  this  theory? 

2.  Is  the  theory  opposed  to  reason  ? 

3.  Do  the  natural  sciences  offer  any  facts  in  its 
favor  ? 

A  short  answer  to  these  three  questions  will  decide 
whether  and  how  far  we  may  accept  the  theory  of 
evolution. 

1)  Wasmann,  1.  c,  p.  171. — The  following  quotation  from 
the  Inter-0cea7i  (Chicago)  of  May  7  (Cable  and  Financial), 
No.  44,  1905,  is  a  striking  verification  of  Wasmann's  warning: 

"Sees  Conversion  of  the  Church  to  Darwinian  Theory." — 
"German  Savant  says  Work  of  Jesuit  Writer  indicates  Recog- 
nition is  to  come." 

"Berlin,  May  6.  Prof.  Ernst  Haeckel  has  delivered  a  most 
interesting  lecture  on  the  subject  of  evolution  and  the  Church. 
He  had  been  induced,  he  said,  to  revoke  his  decision,  made 
some  3'ears  ago,  never  to  lecture  in  public  again,  by  the  ap- 
pearance of  a  book  which  he  claims  marks  an  era  in  the 
history  of  evolution.  It  is  the  work  of  Eric  Wasmann,  a 
Jesuit  father,  residing  at  Luxemburg,  who  has  made  a  special 
study  of  ants.  Wasmann  acknowledges  his  conversion  to 
Darwinism  (sic!),  except  as  regards  the  genesis  of  man, 
who,  as  he  says,  differs  from  the  entire  animal  world  in  that 
he  possesses  a  soul  or  the  spirit  of  God  (!).  In  spite  of  this 
reservation,  Professor  Haeckel  sees  in  Wasmann's  statements 
an  admission  on  the  part  of  the  Catholic  Church  (!),  that  the 
Darwinian  theory  is  correct,  and  he  regards  the  present  posi- 
tion as  a  compromise  (!)  as  important  as  that  made  by  the 
Church  with  Copernicus.     The  consequence  will  be,  adds  the 


KVOI.UTION  AND  FAITH.  77 

lyCt  US  take  a  look  at  Holy  Scripture ;  in  the  first 
chapter  of  the  Book  of  Moses  we  meet  the  following 
passage:  "And  God  said:  Let  the  earth  bring  forth 
the  green  herb,  and  such  as  may  seed,  and  the  fruit- 
tree  yielding  fruit  after  its  kind  which  may  have  seed 
itself  upon  the  earth.  And  it  was  done."  Again: 
"And  God  created  the  great  whales,  and  every  living 
and  moving  creature,  which  the  waters  brought  forth, 
according  to  their  kinds,  and  every  winged  foul  accord- 
ing to  its  kind.  .  .  .  And  God  made  the  beasts  of  the 
earth,  according  to  their  kinds j  and  cattle  and  every- 
thing that  creepeth  on  the  earth  after  its  kind.'''' 

Such  are  the  decisive  words  of  Holy  Writ.  The 
question  is  whether  or  not  they  condemn  evolution. 
At  the  very  first  glance  one  might  be  inclined  to  think 
that  Holy  Scripture  ascribes  the  origin  of  all  animate 
beings,  according  to  their  kind,  to  the  creative  word  of 
God,  as  its  direct  and  immediate  cause.  In  fact,  the 
greater  number  of  the  holy  Fathers  accepted  the  words 
in  this  their  most  obvious  and  literal  meaning.  But, 
is  this  perhaps  a  proof  that  the  explanation  offered  by 
those  Fathers  of  the  Church  is  the  only  possible,  the 
only  correct  one?  Josue  commanded  the  sun  to  stand 
still  (Josue  X,  12-13).  '^^^  majority  interpreted  these 
words  in  their  literal  sense.  Still  this  interpretation 
is  false,  since  the  sun  does  not  revolve  about  the  earth, 
but  the  earth  about  the  sun.  The  matter  is  evident. 
For,  in  some  passages  which  in  themselves  admit  of 
several  explanations  the  interpretation  of  Holy  Scripture 
depends  upon  the  philosophical  ideas  and  scientific 
knowledge  of  the  time.  But  the  interpretation  of  a  Scrip- 
savant,  that  Church-teaching  will  now  adapt  itself  to  the 
Darwinian  theory  (sic!)." 


78  DARWINISM   AND   EVOLUTION. 

tural  text  and  the  article  of  faith  it  actually  contains 
are  two  different  things  which  demand  a  clear  distinc- 
tion. Now,  the  fact  that  the  Fathers  of  the  Church 
took  the  above  quoted  passage  in  its  literal  meaning  is 
not  to  be  wondered  at,  since  the  philosophical  and 
scientific  views  of  their  times  suggested  no  other  ex- 
planation. But  this  acceptation  in  no  way  affects  the 
doctrine  of  faith  actually  contained  in  those  words. 

What,    then,    is   the    real    meaning    of    the   text   in 
question  f 

Father  Knabenbauer,  S.  J.,  answers  the  question 
in  the  following  manner:^)  "Considered  in  connec- 
tion with  the  entire  account  of  creation  the  words  of 
Genesis,  cited  above,  proximately  maintain  nothing 
else  than  that  the  earth  with  all  it  contains  and  bears, 
together  with  the  plant  and  animal  kingdoms,  has  not 
produced  itself  or  is  the  work  of  chance,  but  oives  its 
existence  to  the  power  of  God.  However,  in  what  par- 
ticular manner  the  plant  and  animal  kingdoms  received 
their  existence;  whether  all  species  were  created 
simultaneously  or  only  a  few  which  were  destined  to 
give  life  to  others;  whether  only  one  fruitful  seed 
was  placed  in  mother  earth,  which  under  the  influence 
of  natural  causes  developed  into  the  first  plants,  and 
another  infused  into  the  waters  to  give  birth  to  the 
first  animals  .  ...  all  this  the  Book  of  Genesis  leaves  to 
our  own  investigation  and  to  the  revelations  of  science, 
if,  indeed,  science  is  able  at  all  to  give  a  final  and  un- 
questionable decision.  In  other  words  :  The  article  of 
faith,  contained  in  Genesis,  remains  firm  and  intact,  even 
if  one  explains  the  manner  in  which  the  different  species 
originated  according  to  the  principle  of  the  theory  of  evolu- 
1)    "Stimmen  aus  Maria  Ivaach",  vol.  XIII.,  p.  74. 


EVOLUTION  AND  FAITH.  79 

tion.^''  Ill  accounting  for  their  origin,  Father  Knaben- 
bauer  evidently  does  not  think  it  necessary  to  adhere 
to  the  literal  sense  of  the  Scriptural  text.  The  famous 
exegete  bases  his  view  upon  a  number  of  striking  pas- 
sages found  in  the  writings  of  the  Holy  Fathers.  Here 
we  can  only  mention  the  idea  of  the  world's  creation 
as  conceived  by  St.  Augustine ,  the  greatest  of  ecclesi- 
astical doctors.  St.  Augustine  stood  with  those  who 
defended  a  divine  and  simultaneous  creation  of  all 
things,  not,  however,  as  though  all  individual  beings 
were  perfectly  developed  and  existed  as  separate  in- 
dividuals, but  in  the  sense  that  God  "created  the  fun- 
damental material  for  all  things,  which,  having  been 
fructified  by  God  with  latent  germs  and  forces,  gave 
rise  in  the  course  of  time  and  in  preordained  succes- 
sion to  individual  beings."  This  assertion  of  St. 
Augustine,  confirmed,  as  it  is,  by  many  other  pas- 
sages in  his  works,  is  a  dear  and  unmistakable  proof 
that  the  eminent  doctor  did  not  take  those  words  of 
Holy  Scripture  in  their  literal  meaning.  However, 
not  all  the  Fathers  hold  the  opinion  of  St.  Augustine. 
But  the  fact  that,  far  from  condemning  his  interpre- 
tation, they  readily  admit  its  reasonableness,  not  to 
say  possibility,  evidently  goes  to  show  that  such  an 
acceptation  does  not  contradict  the  ivords  of  Scripture, 

Moreover,  even  those  who  insist  upon  the  literal 
interpretation  of  the  Biblical  account  of  creation,  admit y 
at  least  implicitly,  that  the  origin  of  new  species  is  not 
impossible.  It  was  a  universally  prevalent  idea  that 
insects  and  many  small  animals  originated  from 
decayed  woods  and  fruits,  from  the  hides  and  carcasses 
of  animals  and  from  the  muddy  material  of  swamps 
and  pools.     Some  even,  as  St.  Isidore,  gave  instruc- 


8o  DARWINISM   AND   KVOLUTION. 

tions  as  to  how  certain  animals  might  be  produced. 
"Many,"  he  sa3^s,  "have  observed  that  bees  are 
generated  from  the  carcasses  of  oxen.  In  order  to 
produce  them,  the  flesh  of  slaughtered  calves  is 
pounded,  so  that  maggots  are  brought  forth  from  the 
putrefying  blood,  and  they  then  develop  into  bees. 
But  properly  bees  are  said  to  come  from  oxen,  as  hor- 
nets from  horses,  drones  from  mules,  and  wasps  from 
asses."  ^) 

Now  be  this  view  ever  so  wrong,  it  implies  a 
distinct  admission  that  the  origin  of  new  species  is  not 
contradictory  to  the  Scriptural  accounts.  Otherwise 
the  Fathers  of  the  Church  would  never  have  held 
such  an  opinion. 

But  should  one  inquire,  ivhy  Holy  Scripture  ex- 
presses itself  in  such  a  manner,  the  answer  is  close  at 
hand.  Moses,  as  is  well  known,  addressed  those 
words  in  the  first  place  to  an  uneducated  people,  and 
his  only  object  was  to  bring  home  to  them  in  a  clear 
and  forcible  manner  the  fact  that  God  is  the  Creator  of 
all  things.  But  he  could  not  have  attained  this  end 
more  effectively  than  by  speaking  of  the  species  of 
plants  and  animals  in  a  manner  corresponding  to  the 
actual  experience  of  the  people,  telling  them  in  plain 
words  that  all  things  had  their  origin  in  God,  the 
principle  of  all  existence. 

A  similar  explanation  is  given  by  the  great  Amer- 
ican Geologist  James  D.  Dana.  In  speaking  of  the 
cosmogony  of  the  Bible,  he  first  of  all  expresses  his 
conviction  that  this  ancient  document  must  be  of  a 
divine  origin.      For  "no  human  mind  was  witness  of 

1)    Migne,  vol.  LXXXII.,  p.  470. 


KVOI^UTION  AND  FAITH.  8 1 

the  events;  and  no  such  mind  in  the  early  age  of  the 
world,  unless  gifted  with  superhuman  intelligence, 
could  have  contrived  such  a  scheme, — would  have 
placed  the  creation  of  the  sun,  the  source  of  light  to 
the  earth,  so  long  after  the  creation  of  light,  even  on 
the  fourth  day,  and  what  is  equally  singular,  between 
the  creation  of  plants  and  that  of  animals,  when  so 
important  to  both;  and  none  could  have  reached  to 
the  depth  of  philosophy  exhibited  in  the  whole  plan. ' ' 
Then  he  continues:  ^'If  divine,  the  account  must  bear 
marks  of  human  imperfection,  since  it  was  communicated 
through  Man.  Ideas  suggested  to  a  human  mind  by 
the  Deity,  would  take  shape  in  that  mind  according 
to  its  range  of  knowledge,  modes  of  thought,  and  use 
of  language,  unless  it  were  at  the  same  time  super- 
naturally  gifted  with  the  profound  knowledge  and 
wisdom  adequate  to  their  conception;  and  even  then 
they  could  not  be  intelligibly  expressed,  for  want  of 
words  to  represent  them.  The  central  thought  of 
each  step  in  the  Scripture  cosmogony  ....  is  brought 
out  in  the  simple  and  natural  style  of  a  sublime  intel- 
lect, wise  for  its  times,  but  unversed  in  the  depths  of 
science  which  the  future  was  to  reveal.  The  idea  of 
vegetation  to  such  a  one  would  be  vegetation,  as  he 
knew  it;  and  so  it  is  described.  The  idea  of  dividing 
the  earth  from  the  fluid  around  it  would  take  the  form 
of  a  dividing  from  the  fluid  above,  in  imperfect  con- 
ceptions of  a  mind  unacquainted  with  the  earth's 
sphericity  and  the  true  nature  of  the  firmament, — 
especially  as  the  event  was  beyond  the  reach  of  all 
ordinary  thought. ' ' 

Finally,  having  explained  the  remarkable  harmony 
between  the  opening  page  of  the  Bible  and  the  results 


82  DARWINISM    AND    EVOLUTION. 

of  geology,  he  concludes  with  these  beautiful  words: 
"The  record  in  the  Bible  is,  therefore,  profoundly 
philosophical  in  the  scheme  of  creation  which  it  pre- 
sents. It  is  both  true  and  divine.  It  is  a  declaration 
of  authorship,  both  of  Creation  and  the  Bible,  on  the 
first  page  of  the  sacred  volume.  There  can  he  no  real 
conflict  between  the  two  Books  of  the  Great  Author.  Both 
are  revelations  made  by  Ilini  to  Man, — the  earlier  telling 
of  God-made  harmonies,  coming  up  from  the  deep 
past,  and  rising  to  their  height  when  Man  appeared, 
the  later  teaching  Man's  relations  to  his  Maker,  and 
speaking  of  loftier  harmonies  in  the  eternal  future."^) 

What,  then,  is  the  attitude  of  faith  towards  the 
theory  of  evolution?     The  ansiver  is  a  twofold  one: 

In  the  first  place,  faith  requires  that,  in  any  case,  the 
first  daion  of  plant  and  animal  life — for  this  alone  is 
here  taken  into  consideration — be  ascribed,  in  some  way 
at  least,  to  the  creative  power  of  God.  All  plants  and 
animals  ultimately  derive  their  origin  from  God,  and 
without  God  they  could  not  exist. 

In  the  second  place,  faith  has  not  decided  whether 
plants  and  animals  have  been  directly  or  indirectly  created 
by  God.  In  other  words,  it  is  a  matter  of  perfect  in- 
difference, as  far  as  faith  is  concerned,  to  maintain 
that  the  species  of  plants  and  animals,  now  existing, 
were  originally  created  by  God  in  their  present  state, 
or  to  hold  an  original  creation  of  a  few  species  which 
possessed  the  power  of  developing  into  others. 

There  is  no  need  whatever  to  shrink  in  dismay 

from  the  theory  of  evolution.      For,  disregarding  the 

origin  of  man,  and  granting  the  origin  of  plants  and 

animals  to  be  due  to  God  as  to  their  ultimate  cause,  the 

1)   1.  c,  pp.  847—850. 


EVOI.UTION  AND  FAITH.  83 

theory  of  evolution  is  nothing  more  than  a  question  of 
philosophy  and  of  natural  science^  a  question  in  itself 
entirely  harmless  and  free  from  all  dogmatic  con- 
siderations. Cling  to  the  clear'  distinction  betiveen  the 
four  different  significations  of  ^^  Darwinism  and  Evolu- 
tion^ \  adding  to  the  last  the  two  restrictions  just  men- 
tionedy  and  rest  assured  that  your  assertion  will  in  no 
way  contravene  the  doctrines  of  revealed  truth. 

Is  the  theory  of  evolution,  therefore,  to  be  accepted 
in  the  sense  just  explained?  This  does  not  follow.  For, 
even  if  faith  does  not  reject  the  theory  of  evolution,  it 
is  not  necessarily  implied  that  the  theory  may  be  rea- 
sonably adopted  on  the  ground  of  natural  science. 
Consequently,  to  acquire  a  correct  estimate  of  the 
theory  of  evolution,  we  must  necessarily  submit  the 
question  to  the  tribunal  of  reason  and  of  the  natural 
sciences. 


Chapter  IX. 
Evolution  and  Reason. 

pAITH  and  Holy  Scripture  are  not  opposed  to  the 
theory  of  evolution.  They  merely  insist  on  the 
fact  "that  the  world  and  all  things  which  are  con- 
tained in  it,  both  spiritual  and  material,  have  been, 
in  their  whole  substance,  produced  \  •  God  out  of 
nothing"  (Canons  of  the  Vatican  Council).  About 
the  manner  in  which  all  this  was  accomplished,  faith 
is  silent. 

Hence  we  turn  to  the  tribunal  of  reason  and  ask : 
What  is  the  verdict  of  philosophy  o'lZ  -chc  ilicory  of  evolu- 
tion"^. Does  this  theory  contradict  th^  fundamental 
tenets  of  Christian  philosophy,  or  are  both  in  concert 
with  each  other? 

The  theory  of  evolution  is  intended  to  account  for 
the  origin  of  the  different  species  of  plants  and  animals. 
According  to  this,  the  theory  implies  that  objects 
which  once  were  devoid  of  existence  came  into  being  in 
the  course  of  time.  Hence,  there  must  be  a  sufficient 
cause  which  fully  accounts  for  this  effect.  For  it  is  a 
fundamental  principle  of  sound  philosophy  that  there 
can  be  no  effect  without  an  adequate  cause.  What 
may  this  cause  be  in  our  case? 

Philosophy  answers  in  unmistakable  terms  that  the 
origin  of  the  first  living  cells  is  undoubtedly  due  to  a  per- 
sonal God  who  has  infused  life  into  inorganic  matter. 
For  brute  matter  is  unable  to  develop  into  living 
matter  by  its  own  forces.     Brute  matter  is  the  lowest 

(84) 


EVOLUTION  AND  RKASON.  85 

form  of  being  and  in  all  its  properties  directly  opposed 
to  living  matter.  For  brute  matter  as  such  does  not 
act,  unless  it  be  acted  upon,  and  the  effect  produced 
is  mathematically  equal  to  the  amount  of  force  im- 
parted to  it  from  without.  If  left  to  itself,  it  spontane- 
ously tends  to  enter  into  the  most  stable  combinations, 
and  these  again  do  not  rest  until  they  have  assumed 
the  most  stable  state  possible.  Here  are  two  illustra- 
tions. If  the  element  chlorine  acts  successively  upon 
the  six  metals  potassium,  magnesium,  aluminium, 
iron,  silver,  gold,  six  different  chlorids  or  salts  are 
formed.  Nov^  the  action  is  most  violent  in  case  of 
potassium ;  but  its  intensity  decreases  as  we  proceed 
through  the  scale  from  potassium  to  magnesium  and 
so  forth,  becoming  least  in  case  of  gold.  The  amount 
of  heat  set  free  in  the  single  experiments  is  in  the 
same  decreasing  proportion,  being  greatest  when 
chlorine  combines  wnth  potassium,  and  least  when  it 
combines  with  gold.  But  the  relative  stability  of  the 
compounds  formed  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  these 
facts.  For  each  of  the  six  metals  can  separate  each  of 
the  subsequent  metals  from  their  combination,  but 
none  of  the  row  is  able  to  take  the  place  of  the  preced- 
ing metal.  Silver  can  separate  gold  from  a  chlorine- 
compound,  iron  both  silver  and  gold  from  their  com- 
binations and  so  forth  ;  but  it  never  occurs  that  gold 
would  replace  silver  or  any  other  metal  in  the  various 
salts. 

Again  the  element  sulfur  occurs  in  three  different 
forms,  as  rhombic  crystals,  as  monoclinic  crystals  and 
in  the  uncrystailized  condition,  the  first  of  these 
being  the  most  stable.  Accordingly,  if  uncrystailized 
sulfur  is  left  to  itself,  it  spontaneously  forms  crystals 


86  DARWINISM   AND   EVOI^UTION. 

under  certain  conditions,  first  of  the  monoclinic  kind, 
but  at  the  end  invariably  of  the  rhombic  system,  a 
change  which  is  accompanied  by  a  considerable  evolu- 
tion of  heat. 

Hundreds  such  like  illustrations  are  furnished  by 
chemistry  and  physics,  and  a  thousand  may  be  added 
from  phenomena  of  daily  experience,  all  evincing  the 
self-same  conclusion  that  the  tendency  towards  stabil- 
ity and  equilibrium  is  the  fundamental  characteristic 
of  inorganic  matter.  Indeed,  there  is  no  clock-work 
powerful  enough  to  v^^ind  itself  up  by  dint  of  its  own 
activity,  no  steam-engine  which  would  supply  itself 
with  coal  and  steam.  If  no  motion  be  imparted  to 
them  frovi  without^  clock-work  and  steam-engine  are 
incapable  of  acquiring  energy  and  of  doing  any  work, 
be  it  ever  so  little.  The  organism,  on  the  contrary,  is 
able  to  act  of  and  on  itself ,  to  develop  and  perfect  itself  by 
its  oivn  motion  and  activity.  Its  tendency  is  not  stab- 
ility, but  motion.  Unceasingly  the  sap  rises  in  the  stems 
and  branches  of  trees,  and  without  rest  the  blood  hurries 
through  the  arteries  and  veins  of  animals.  Without 
rest  the  cells  divide  and  multiply,  constantly  expend- 
ing energy  and  making  up  again  for  the  losses.  A 
twig  is  broken  from  a  tree,  a  limb  torn  from  the  body 
of  an  insect,  a  wound  inflicted  on  one's  hand  or  leg; 
at  once  a  thousand  cells  rush  to  the  injured  spot; 
a  new  twig  grovv^s  out  from  the  tree;  the  limb  is  healed 
or  even  restored;  new  tissue  fills  out  the  wounded 
hand  or  leg. 

No  stone  or  crystal  is  capable  of  taking  up  foreign 
elements  into  itself  and  of  assimilating  them  to  its  own 
substance.  No  stone  or  crystal  has  the  power  of 
developing  from  within.      No  stone   or   crystal   can 


EVOLUTION  AND  REASON.  87 

propagate  or  reproduce  its  kind.  Organized  or  living 
matter  alone  is  capable  of  performing  all  these  func- 
tions. Plants  and  animals  alone  can  flourish  themselves 
and  develop  by  taking  food  which  they  change  into 
their  own  substance  and  which  they  dispose  of  accord- 
ing to  their  specific  and  individual  form  of  structure 
and  according  to  the  needs  of  every  single  part  of  the 
oro-anism.  They  alone  can  give  rise  to  new  individual 
forms,  perfectly  like  to  themselves,  and  multiply  their 
kind  indefinitely. 

In  a  further  description  of  this  essential  difference 
between  crystal  and  organism,  G.  H.  Williams  says 
as  follows : 

"Crystals  are  distinguished  from  living  organisms 
by  the  method  of  their  growth.  While  the  latter  grow 
from  within  outward  and  are  conditioned  both  in  their 
form,  size  and  period  of  existence  by  the  internal  laws 
of  their  being,  crystals  enlarge  by  regular  accretions 
from  without,  and  are  limited  in  size  and  duration 
only  by  external  circumstances.  Organisms  must  pass 
through  a  fixed  cycle  of  constantly  succeeding  changes. 
Youth,  maturity,  and  old  age  are  unlike  and  must 
come  to  all  in  the  same  order.  There  is,  furthermore, 
in  nearly  all  living  things  a  differentiation  of  organs, 
limitation  in  the  extent  of  growth  and  the  power  of 
reproduction.  In  crystals,  on  the  other  hand,  every 
part  is  exactly  like  every  other  part.  Our  definition 
of  crystal  structure  is  an  arrangement  of  particles,  the 
same  about  one  point  as  about  every  other  point ; 
hence,  in  one  sense,  the  smallest  fragment  of  a  crystal 
is  complete  in  itself.  Moreover,  since  crystals  grow 
by  the  addition  of  regular  layers  of  molecules,  arranged 
just  like  all  other  layers,  we  can  set  no  limit  to  the 


88  DARWINISM    AND    EVOLUTION. 

size  of  a  crystal,  so  long  as  the  supply  of  material  and 
conditions  favorable  to  its  formation  remain  constant. 
There  is,  in  fact,  the  widest  divergence  in  the  size  of 
crystal  individuals  of  the  same  composition  and  struct- 
ure. Those  of  ultra-microscopic  dimensions  and 
those  many  feet  in  length  may  be  identical  in  every- 
thing but  size.  Both  are  equally  complete,  and  one 
is  in  no  sense  the  embrj^o  of  the  other.  Finally,  the 
individual  crystal,  unlike  the  individual  organism, 
will  remain  unchanged  so  long  as  its  surroundings  are 
favorable  to  its  existence.  "  ^) 

In  short,  crystal  and  cell,  the  two  most  typical 
representatives  of  brute  and  living  matter,  differ  from 
each  other  in  three  main  points,  (a)  In  the  crystal 
we  observe  the  greatest  possible  homogeneity  of  struct- 
ure and  physical  properties,  in  the  cell  the  greatest 
possible  differentiation  of  structure  and  physiological 
functions.  (6)  The  crystal  reveals  the  greatest  pos- 
sible stability  in  every  respect,  the  cell  an  innate  ten- 
dency of  perfecting  itself  from  within.  (c)  In  the 
crystal  increase  in  size  and  number  is  effected  by  an 
unlimited  external  accretion,  in  the  cell  growth  and 
propagation  of  kind  are  due  to  the  most  complicated 
processes  of  immanent  cell-division  according  to  a 
definite  plan  of  great  perfection  and  with  a  definite 
result. 

Hence  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  inorganic  matter 
is  inferior  to  organic  matter,  and  that  the  latter  has 
properties  which  are  directly  opposed  to  those  of  the 
former.  Consequently,  inorganic  matter  as  such  could 
never  give  birth  to  organic  matter.     But,  besides  inor- 

0  "Elements  of  Crystallography",  New  York,  1892,  3rd 
ed.,  pp.  10—11. 


EVOLUTION  AND  REASON.  Sq 

ganic  matter,  there  was  nothing  in  the  beginning  of 
time  which  had  the  power  of  doing  so  excerpt  God,  the 
Creator  of  all  things,  to  whom  matter  itself  with  all  its 
laws  and  forces  owes  its  existence.  It  iSy  therefore,  a 
true  'postulate  of  reason  to  assume  that  the  first  origin  of 
life  is  due  to  the  action  of  a  personal  Creator. 

But  what  will  philosophy  tell  us  concerning  the 
living  beings  which  in  the  course  of  ages  succeeded 
those  that  were  originally  produced  by  God  ?  There 
is  a  twofold  possibility.  Either  all  species  of  plants 
and  animals  existed  from  the  very  beginning,  or  came 
into  existence  in  the  course  of  time.  Now,  if  they 
existed  from  the  very  beginning,  then  they  were  evi- 
dently identical  with  those  first  living  beings  of  which 
we  have  just  spoken.  Hence,  their  origin  is  due  to 
God.  If  they  originated  at  later  periods,  we  must  be 
able  to  assign  a  sufiicient  cause  for  their  coming  into 
existence.  Is  there  such  a  cause  ?  The  answer  is  two- 
fold. These  species  of  a  later  date  were  either  directly 
produced  by  God  as  their  predecessors  were,  or  they 
were  the  descendants  of  those  first  species,  which  originally 
received  from  God  the  innate  power  and  tendency  of  giv- 
ing rise  to  new  specific  forms. 

Both  explanations  are  perfectly  in  accord  with  the 
demands  of  reason.  For  both  offer  a  sufiicient  cause 
to  account  for  the  origin  of  species.  Which  of  the  two 
is  the  true  one  cannot  be  decided  by  reason  alone. 
What  reason  demands  is,  that  the  origin  of  all  organic  as 
well  as  inorganic  nature  is  ultimately  due  to  God.  For 
there  is  no  effect,  which  is  not  produced  by  a  cause  su- 
perior, or  at  least  equivalent  to  it.  Absolute  "nothing", 
being  less  than  "something",  cannot  by  itself  develop 
into  matter.      Mere  matter  cannot  evolve  itself  into 


90  DARWINISM   AND   EVOI.UTION. 

life;  for  it  is  less  than  life.  Species  of  plants  and 
animals,  produced  by  God,  cannot  of  themselves  give 
birth  to  new  and  more  perfect  ones;  for  without  an 
intrinsic  law  of  development,  without  an  intrinsic  for- 
mative power  to  transform  themselves  into  beings  with 
new  and  more  perfect  organs  and  qualities,  these  first 
species  of  plants  and  animals  are  less  than  the  new  and 
more  perfect  species  which  should  spring  from  them 
as  from  their  cause. 

Again  the  intrinsic  forces  and  laws  of  development 
cannot  possibly  be  the  product  of  blind  and  impotent 
chance,  but  must  likewise  be  ultimately  due  to  God's 
wisdom  and  power.  A  proof  of  this.  Unearth  and 
decipher  the  countless  petrifactions  which  lie  scattered 
throughout  the  boundless  tracts  of  nature's  realm;  let 
your  intellect,  unclouded  by  the  haze  of  prejudice, 
study  the  richness  and  variety  of  a  kingdom  of  plants 
and  animals  now  extinct,  but  inurned  and  embalmed 
by  the  preserving  hand  of  nature  in  vast  layers  of  rock 
and  in  many  a  curious  cavern  ;  survey  the  endless 
range  of  living  creatures  participating,  each  in  its 
own  particular  way,  the  singular  beauty  and  harmony 
pervading  the  entire  world  of  living  beings  that 
people  this  wonderful  earth — and  you  cannot  help  but 
recognize  in  all  the  organs,  cells  and  tissues  of  the 
single  organisms,  endowed,  as  they  are,  with  a  won- 
derfully adapted  and  almost  infallible  activity,  master- 
pieces of  inconceivable  grandeur  and  harmony.  At  the 
sight  of  such  wonders,  who  can  fail  to  acknowledge 
that  the  almost  infinite  energy  of  the  intrinsic  forces 
and  laws,  which  moulded  the  present  world  of  living 
beings,  cannot  be  the  work  of  chance,  but  must  have 
had  its  ultimate  source  in  the  wisdom  and  power  of 


EVOLUTION  AND  REASON.  9 1 

God.     He  it  is  who  has  implanted  them  in  the  first 
living  germs  which  came  from  His  hand. 

What  J  therefore,  does  reason  maintain  about  the  origin 
of  species  f  It  maintains  that  this  origin  must  be 
ascribed  to  God  either  directly  or  indirectly.  Reason 
does  not  decide  whether  all  the  species  now  existing 
have  always  remained  in  the  same  condition  of  their 
original  creation,  as  they  were  when  first  produced  by 
God,  or  whether  they  descended  from  other  species 
more  or  less  different  from  themselves.  Nor  does  she 
explain  how  many  species  were  originally  produced  by 
God,  and  in  what  manner  others  were  derived  from 
them.  She  also  refuses  to  furnish  any  positive  infor- 
mation on  the  question  whether,  after  the  first  species 
were  produced,  God  repeatedly  called  new  forms  of 
plants  and  animals  into  existence,  as  the  long  geologi- 
cal periods  succeeded  each  other.  All  this  is  a  matter 
of  perfect  indifference  to  her.  She  does  7iot  even  decide 
which  particular  laws  regulated  tlie  development  of 
species,  if  such  has  taken  place,  and  which  intrinsic 
powers  have  brought  new  forms.  Place,  time  and 
other  circumstances  connected  with  the  first  origin  of 
life,  the  succession  of  the  single  species  as  to  kind  and 
number,  all  this  reason  cannot  determine.  Most  of 
these  questions  can  be  solved  only  by  having  recourse 
to  the  natural  sciences.  At  any  rate,  they  have  nothing 
to  do  with  Philosophy.  It  is  the  task  of  the  philosopher 
to  search,  as  far  as  possible,  into  the  ultimate  causes  of 
things  and  phenomena,  and  to  watch  with  greatest 
care  that  the  laws  of  logic  remain  forever  intact. 

What,  therefore,  is  the  attitude  of  reason  towards  the 
theory  of  evolution  f 

The  answer  comprises  three  propositions : 


92  DARWINISM   AND   KVOI^UTION. 

1.  Reason  demands  that  the  theory  of  evolution  sup- 
poses the  interference  of  God  in  the  first  origin  of  life, 

2.  Reason,  furthermore,  demands  that  the  develop- 
ment of  new  species  is  to  be  reduced  to  intrinsic  powers 
and  to  intrinsic  laivs  of  development.  These  powers 
and  laws,  in  their  turn,  have  been  put  into  nature  by  the 
Author  of  life. 

3.  Man — as  has  been  proved  above — is  outside  the 
domain  of  evolution.  For  man  is  a  living  being,  gifted 
with  intelligence  and  will,  faculties  of  a  purely  spirit- 
ual nature  and  in  no  way  to  be  compared  with  the 
material  ^)  soul  of  the  animal  and  the  living  principle 
of  the  plant.  No  theory  of  evolution  can  span  the  chasm 
between  matter  and  spirit.  For  the  characteristic  prop- 
erties of  each  are  in  every  respect  diametrically  opposed 
to  each  other.  It  would,  therefore,  be  an  intrinsic 
contradiction  and  an  absolute  impossibility  to  derive  the 
spiritual  nature  of  man  from  the  sensuous  nature  of 
the  brute. 

This  is  what  sound  and  unbiased  reason  has  to  tell 
us  concerning  the  theory  of  evolution.  Provided  the 
theory  remain  within  the  limits  defined  by  the  three 
restrictions  made  above,  it  is  in  full  harmony  with  the 
principles  of  reason  and  can  meet  the  stern  face  of 
philosophy  with  a  clear  and  calm  conscience.  If, 
however,  that  theory  should  ever  presume  in  the  dead 
and  dark  of  night  to  pass  over  the  bounds  and  to  ex- 
tend its  domain,  it  exposes  itself  to  the  ridicule  of 
contradiction  and  will  finally  be  forced  to  restore  to 
its  legitimate  owner  the  territory  unjustly  occupied. 

Philosophy,  then,  is  not  opposed  to  the  theory  of 
evolution.     On  the  contrary,  it  is  strongly  inclined  to 
^)    i.  e.,  intrineioally  dependent  on  matter. 


KVOLUTION  AND  REASON.  93 

favor  it.  For  it  is  a  well-founded  and  universally 
accepted  principle  of  Christian  philosophy,  that  no 
direct  interference  of  God  is  to  be  assumed,  if  merely 
natural  causes  sufficiently  account  for  phenomena,  For, 
she  is  convinced  that  it  is  more  in  accordance  with  the 
ways  of  Divine  Wisdom  to  make  use  of  created  causes, 
whenever  they  are  sufficient  to  produce  the  desired 
result.  It  was  for  this  reason  that  she  welcomed  the 
Copernican  system  with  all  the  main  consequences  it 
involved,  and  cheerfully  accepted  the  various  proofs 
suggested  by  the  natural  sciences  in  favor  of  the  idea 
that  sun  and  earth  and  all  the  stars  and  planets  were 
developed  from  a  huge  ball  of  glowing  gases.  She 
will  be  equally  inclined  to  give  preference  to  the  theory 
of  evolution,  provided,  of  course,  the  natural  sciences 
will  supply  the  necessary  facts. 

Does  it  follow  from  this  favorable  verdict  of  phi- 
losophy that  the  theory  of  evolution  ought  to  be 
accepted?  We  answer  again  that  this  conclusion  is 
unwarranted.  For,  so  far  we  have  only  shown  that 
faith  is  not  inimical  to  the  theory  of  evolution  and  that 
reason  favors  it.  But  from  a  mere  possibility  and 
probability,  we  are  by  no  means  allowed  to  infer  a 
reality.  The  natural  sciences  must  decide  the  question. 
They  and  they  alone  are  qualified  to  judge  whether 
the  theory  of  evolution  is  based  on  real  facts,  or  is 
nothing  else  than  a  probable  idea;  in  other  words, 
whether  it  is  to  be  accepted  or  rejected. 


Chapter  X. 

Evolution  and  the  Natural  Sciences. 

'T'HE  theory  of  evolution  has  nothing  to  fear  froid 
faith.  Nor  does  it  come  into  collision  with  the 
principles  of  philosophy.  The  final  solution  of  the 
question  will,  therefore,  rest  solely  with  the  natural 
sciences.  If  there  are  facts  which  evidently  support 
the  theory  of  evolution,  we  shall  not  hesitate  to  adopt 
that  theory.  Otherwise  we  shall  adhere  to  the  time- 
honored  theory  of  constancy,  being  in  the  meantime 
satisfied  to  admire  the  beauty  and  grandeur  of  an  idea, 
the  realization  of  which  is  but  a  mere  possibility. 

Whatj  therefore,  is  the  verdict  of  the  natural  sciences 
upon  the  theory  of  evolution?  In  other  words,  are  there 
any  facts  at  hand  which  cannot  well  be  made  to  agree 
with  the  theory  of  constancy,  and  are  apt  to  find  a 
readier  explanation  if  viewed  in  the  light  of  an  evolu- 
tionary principle  ? 

I. 

Before  we  enter  upon  this  question,  we  call  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that,  far  from  opposing  dogma  and 
reason,  the  natural  sciences  even  emphasize  the  restric- 
tions which  determine  the  domahi  of  the  supposed,  theory 
of  evolution. 

With  reference  to  the  origin  of  man  this  is  evident 
at  a  glance.      For  we  have  amply  proved  that  the 

(94) 


EVOLUTION  AND  THK  NATURAL  SCIKNCES.  95 

natural  sciences  have  not  been  able  to  advance  even 
the  slightest  shadow  of  an  argument  in  support  of 
man's  animal  descent. 

But  what  do  the  natural  sciences  maintain  con- 
cerning the  origin  of  life?  We  begin  with  a  proposi- 
tion, conceded  by  most  scientists,  that  life  must  have 
had  a  beginning.  This  follows  from  the  fact,  as  Prof. 
August  Weismann  argues,  that  all  organic  substances 
are  constantly  and  spontaneously  changed  into  inorganic 
substances.  But  "a  being  which  conies  to  an  end, 
cannot  be  eternal;  it  must  have  had  a  beginning; 
consequently  organic  combinations  are  not  eternal, 
but  transitory,  something  which  comes  and  goes, 
originating  when  all  necessary  conditions  are  fulfilled, 
but  to  be  decomposed  into  simple  combinations,  as 
soon  as  those  conditions  are  undone. ' '  ■^) 

The  temperature  of  the  earth,  moreover,  even  at  the 
time  when  a  solid  crust  had  been  formed,  was  at  least 
2500  degrees  F. ,  which  evidently  must  have  rendered 
the  existence  of  living  germs  impossible. 

Liebig's  theory,  finally,  which  suggests  that  life 
has  been  brought  to  our  globe  from  other  cosmic  bodies 
by  meteorites  is  untenable. 

For  the  supposed  living  germs  buried  in  the 
crevices  of  meteorites  could  never  have  sustained  the 
extreme  cold  and  absolute  aridity  of  the  cosmic  spaces. 
Nor  is  it  in  any  way  probable  that  a  single  living 
germ  could  have  been  kept  alive  in  a  meteorite  turned 
into  a  glowing  body  when  passing  through  our  atmo- 
sphere. Besides,  it  is  plain  that  all  such  theorizing 
merely  retards  the  solution  of  the  problem.     For,   if 

1)  "Vortrage  uber  Descendenztheorie,"  vol.  II,  ed.  2,  1904, 
p.  306. 


96  DARWINISM   AND   EVOLUTION. 

living  germs  have  come  to  this  earth  from  other  cos- 
mic globes,  the  same  question  of  their  origin  confronts 
us.  At  any  rate,  so  the  great  majority  of  prominent 
scientists  assures  us,  life  must  have  had  a  beginning. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been  clearly  demonstrated 
that  living  beings  cannot  originate  from  inorganic  ^natter, 
but  solely  from  other  living  beings.  Professor  Rosenthal 
says  to  this  effect:  "In  order  to  exclude  with  certainty 
any  development  of  living  beings  in  infusions  or 
fluids,  that  contain  the  substances  necessary  for  their 
nutriment,  two  conditions  must  be  fulfilled  :  receptacles 
and  materials  must  be  entirely  free  from  living  beings  and 
their  germs,  and  the  subsequent  entrance  of  the  same  must 
be  made  impossible.  But  it  is  not  easy  to  fulfill  these 
two  conditions.  This  is  the  reason  why  we  not  in- 
frequently meet  men  who  maintain  that  their  experi- 
ments have  proved  primo-genesis  beyond  the  possibil- 
ity of  doubt.  But  the  very  contrary  must  be  asserted 
with  so  much  the  more  emphasis :  in  all  experiments 
that  have  been  made  with  scrupulous  care,  living  beings 
have  never  come  into  existence  under  the  above-mentioned 
conditions.^ ^  Again,  ''However  we  may  vary  the  con- 
ditions of  the  test,  it  can  always  be  shown  that  no  new 
substances  develop  if  no  living  substances  be  present. 
Therefore  we  can  maintain  with  certainty  that  no  one  has 
been  able  to  prove  primo-genesis,  the  origin  of  a  living  sub- 
stance from  one  that  had  no  life.''^  ^) 

Hence,  since  the  laws  of  nature  are  supposed  to  have 
been  the  same  from  the  very  beginning,  it  follows  with 
logical  necessity  that  the  first  origin  of  life  is  not  due  to 
spontaneous  generation. 

^)  "Ivchrbuch  der  Allgemeinen  Physiologic,"  1901,  pp. 
B54-556. 


EVOLUTION  AND  THK  NATURAL  SCIENCES.  97 

This  conclusion,  it  is  true,  the  greater  number  of 
modern  scientists  reject.  ''All  that  we  may  legitim- 
ately affirm,"  says  Rosenthal,  "is  that  under  the  con- 
ditions which  have  been  thus  far  realized  in  experi- 
ments, this  origin  of  life  does  not  occur. "  "I^iving 
beings  originated  perhaps  in  quite  another  way  and 
from  quite  another  material  than  that  which  we  use  in 
our  experiments.  Hundreds  and  thousands  of  years 
were  perhaps  necessary  for  such  an  origin.  Perhaps  . .  . 
''It  would  be  superfluous,"  Rosenthal  concludes,  **to 
continue  this  enumeration  of  '  perhapses. '  We  must 
leave  unanswered  those  questions  which  we  cannot 
solve  with  the  resources  at  our  disposal.  We  must  be 
ready  to  acknowledge  that  we  know  nothing  about  the 
first  origin  of  living  beings  on  earth,  and  we  must 
wait  to  see  whether  the  discovery  of  new  facts  in  the 
future  will  fill  up  this  gap  in  our  knowledge."  ^) 

In  a  similar  spirit  of  agnostic  resignation,  Weis- 
mann  and  others  try  to  get  around  the  dreadful  con- 
clusion of  admitting  the  existence  of  a  personal  God. 
Weismann  even  calls  primo-genesis  a  demand  of  science 
and  —  to  make  matters  doubly  sure  —  he  maintains 
that  it  will  be  impossible  to  show,  that  life  does  not  origin- 
ate from  inorganic  matter!  For  the  first  living  beings 
originating  will  be  and  will  have  been  so  small  and  in- 
significant that  no  microscope  would  be  powerful 
enough  to  discern  them.  Indeed,  those  ^^biophorids,^^ 
as  he  calls  them,  will  be  so  minute  as  to  be  and  for- 
ever remain  entirely  imperceptible.  But  such  are  idle 
dreams  and  no  facts;  fanciful  ideas  resulting  from  the 
a  priori  assumption  that  rather  than  acknowledge  a 
personal  Creator,  we  must  admit  the  most  groundless 
assertions,  made  to  rest  on  imperceptible  facts ! 
1)  I.e.  p.  557. 


98  DARWINISM   AND   EVOLUTION. 

The  matter  is  very  simple.  We  have  three  factSy 
universally  admitted  by  modern  scientists : 

1.  The  laws  of  nature  remain  unchangeable.  Hence 
the  laws  of  the  present  have  been  the  laws  of  the  past. 
The  contrary  assumption  would  make  all  scientific 
inquiries  into  the  past  altogether  impossible. 

2.  No  intermediate  beings  between  inorganic  matter 
and  the  simplest  living  cell,  composed  of  protoplasm 
and  nucleus,  have  ever  been  discovered.  Weismann's 
"biophorids,"  Hertwig's  "idioblasts,"  Altmann's 
''autoblasts,"  etc.,  are  to  this  day  no  more  than  pure 
possibilities.  Similarly  HaeckeVs  moners,  which  he  de- 
scribed as  living  beings  without  the  vestige  of  a 
nucleus,  are  fast  disappearing  with  the  constant  im- 
provement of  modern  instruments.  According  to 
Hertwig,  "the  number  of  moners  was  formerly  very 
considerable,  but  decreased  with  the  growing  perfection 
of  technical  means  to  prove  the  presence  of  nuclei.  Hence, 
it  is  not  merely  a  conjecture,  but  a  probable  assump- 
tion that  the  nuclei  have  only  been  overlooked  in  the 
few  forms  that  are  still  supposed  to  be  monera.  "^) 
Moreover,  the  lower  plants  that  were  thought  to  be 

1)  "Ivehrbuch  der  Zoologie,"  1900,  p.  159.  It  is  remark- 
able that  many  books  on  zoology  still  describe  the  monera  as 
beings  consisting  of  protoplasm.  For  such  forms  are  well 
adapted  to  make  the  difference  between  dead  matter  and  the 
lowest  organisms  less  conspicuous.  Thus  we  read  in  Pack- 
ard's Zoology:  "It  is  probable  that  the  monera  were  the 
earliest  beings  to  appear,  and  that  from  forms  resembling 
them,  all  other  organisms  have  originated.  We  can  conceive 
at  least  of  no  simpler  ancestral  form  ;  and  if  organized  beings 
were  originally  produced  from  the  chemical  elements  which 
form  protoplasm,  one  would  be  naturally  led  to  suppose  that 
the  earliest  form  was  like  'protamoeba'  (one  of  the  moners)." 
(Advanced  Course,  1897,  p.  21-22). 


EVOICUTION  AND  THK  NATURAI.  SCIENCES.  99 

destitute  of  a  nucleus  as  the  bacteria  or  microbes,  have 
been  found  to  possess  protoplasm  and  nucleus,  though 
the  latter  is  dissociated  into  a  number  of  tiny  granules. 
Even  the  red  corpuscles  in  the  blood  form  no  exception 
to  the  rule.  They  contain  a  nucleus,  at  least  in  the 
beginning  of  their  existence,  and  die  soon  after  losing 
it.  In  short,  there  is  no  living  cell  either  among  the 
lowest  plants  or  animals  or  within  the  tissues  of 
higher  plants  and  animals,  that  is  not  composed  of 
-protoplasm  and  nucleus,  a  fact  which  proves  to  evidence 
that  all  the  various  intermediate  forms  invented  by  many 
modern  scientists  are  fictions.  Nor  can  this  be  otherwise, 
since,  as  we  have  shown  above,  t-here  is  an  essential 
difference  between  organic  and  inorganic  matter. 

3.     As  has  been  stated,  no  spontaneous  transition  of 
inorganic  matter  into  living  matter  has  been  observed. 

What  conclusion  are  we  to  draw  from  these  three 
facts  ? 

That  spontaneous  generation  has  actually  never  taken 
place  and  consequently  that  the  first  origin  of  life  is  due 
to  a  cause  not  identical  with  inorganic  matter.  Or  as  the 
famous  biologist  Reinke  has  it:  *'If  we  assume  that 
living  beings  are  at  all  and  in  any  way  derived  from 
inorganic  matter,  the  theory  of  creation  is  in  my 
opinion  the  only  one  that  complies  with  the  demands 
of  logic  and  causality,  and,  consequently,  with  a 
rational  investigation  of  nature.  I  take  creation  to 
mean  that  at  the  beginning  of  time,  when  no  living 
being  of  any  sort  moved  on  the  surface  of  the  earth, 
the  first  organisms  came  from  the  pre-existing  condi- 
tions of  the  earth's  crust  through  forces  that  were  not 
contained  within  inorganic  matter,  but  worked  on  it  from 
without,    just    as    iron    and    brass    are    turned    into 


lOO  DARWINISM   AND   EVOLUTION. 

machinery  by  forces  that  are  not  a  property  of  these 
metals."  ^) 

It  is  clear  from  this  that  the  natural  sciences  have  by 
no  means  succeeded  in  removing  those  restrictions  which 
faith  and  reason  demand  as  necessary  qualifications  of 
any  evolutionary  theory. 

II. 

Quite  different,  however,  is  the  verdict  of  the 
natural  sciences  on  the  theory  of  evolution,  provided 
the  latter  remains  within  the  irremovable  limits  just 
defined.  L,et  us  shortly  review  the  most  important 
points  on  which  the  entire  question  hinges : 

I.  Generally  speaking,  the  plants  and  animals 
now  existing  bear  characteristic  features  of  a  constant 
nature,  and  if  changes  occur,  they  generally  remain 
within  the  limits  of  the  species.  Our  domestic  animals 
differ  in  no  small  degree  from  their  wild  progenitors. 
They  do  not,  however,  constitute  new  species,  but 
varieties.  For  if  left  to  themselves  they  will  invariably 
lose  the  improved  ways  and  traits  acquired  by  years  of 
training  and  domestication.  And  what  will  be  the 
ultimate  outcome?  That  the  animals  we  tried  to 
elevate  above  their  less  fortunate  fellows  of  the  forest 
and  the  prairie,  will  within  a  very  short  time  adopt 
the  life  habits  and  structural  peculiarities  of  their  wild 
companions.  But,  be  it  well  remembered,  the  un- 
deniable specific  constancy  of  which  we  speak,  proves 
nothing  beyond  the  fact  that  at  the  present  period  of  the 
earth's  development  the  species  of  plants  and  animals 
are  generally  constant.  That  they  have  always  been  so, 
has  not  been  determined.  On  the  contrary,  a  series  of 
facts  is  at  hand  which  encourage  the  assumption  that  the 
1)    "Einleitung  in  die  Theoretische  Biologic, "  p.  559. 


EVOI.UTION  AND  THE  NATURAI,  SCIENCES.         lOI 

various  species  of  today  have  come  to  their  present 
state  of  existence  and  perfection  by  a  process  of  specific 
evolution.  Scientists  of  the  best  repute  as  Kerner,  von 
Marilaun,  Kd.  Fischer,  and  especially  Hugo  de  Vries 
and  Eric  Wasmarui  have  of  late  established  the  proof  that, 
hy  way  of  rare  exceptions,  there  exist  even  today  a  few 
species  of  plants  and  animals  which  produce  new  sjyecific 
forms.  The  facts,  it  is  true,  are  mostly  of  so  technical 
a  nature  that  to  insert  here  an  exhaustive  explanation 
and  to  point  out  their  full  argumentative  value,  would 
be  foreign  to  the  nature  and  purpose  of  our  present  dis- 
sertation. For  their  due  appreciation  the  knowledge 
and  interest  of  the  specialist  or  at  least  a  thorough 
acquaintance  with  those  respective  branches  of  natural 
history,  from  which  the  arguments  are  drawn,  forms 
an  indispensable  requisite.  It  may  nevertheless  be  of 
some  interest  to  indicate  in  brief  the  arguments  of 
Hugo  de  Vries  and  E.  Wasmann.^^ 

In  the  year  1866  de  Vries  observed  a  plant  called 
Oenothera  Lamar ckiana  (Evening  Primrose),  of  Amer- 
ican origin  and  possessing  great  powers  of  fertility. 
At  once  he  conceived  the  idea  that  precisely  this 
fertility  might  possibly  inaugurate  a  period  of  muta- 
tion, if  the  plant  were  put  into  foreign  soil.  Two 
deviating  forms  were  discovered  on  the  same  field 
with  the  Oenothera  Lamarckiana.  They  manifested  the 
constancy  of  true  species,  but  were  unknown  to  the 
systematists  of  the  day.  This  discovery  rendered  de 
Vries'  supposition  highly  plausible.  Encouraged  and 
confirmed  in  his  belief,  de  Vries  took  nine  well  devel- 

1)  The  following  is  taken  from  our  paper  in  the  Messenger 
(New  York)  April,  1905,  on  "The  Arguments  of  De  Vries  and 
Wasmann  in  Favor  of  Evolution,"  with  the  kind  permission 
of  the  Rev.  Editor. 


I02 


DARWINISM   AND   EVOLUTION. 


Oped  specimens  of  the  Oenothera  Lamarckiana  and 
transplanted  them  from  Hilversum,  a  town  situated 
between  Amsterdam  and  Utrecht,  to  his  garden  in 
Amsterdam.  And  what  was  the  result?  Within  seven 
generations  he  produced  from  these  nine  single  speci- 
mens about  50,000  plants  and  among  their  number 
about  800  specimens  that  had  unmistakably  deviated 
from  the  original  type.  This  interesting  and  marvel- 
lous result  is  more  clearly  expressed  in  the  figures  of 
the  following  table  :  ^) 

Genetic  Tree  of  Oenothera  eamarckiana. 

(The  numbers  designate  individuals.) 
(Plate  3-4.; 


Generation. 

0 

< 

1 

0 
3 
0 

't 

1) 

.2 

,0 

c3 

1 

cd 

Cd 

to 
d 
cd 

n 

I.     1886-87- 

— 

9 



— 

— 

2.     1888-89- 

— 

— 

15,000 

5 

5 

— 

3.     1890-91- 

— 

— 

I 

10,000 

3 

^ 
3 

— 

A        iSq^^ 

I 

15 

176 

8 

14,000 

60 

73 

I 

c,     i8q6 

25 

135 

20 

8,000 

49     142 

6 

6.     1897 

II 

29 

3 

1,800 

9 

5 

I 

7.     i8q8 

9 

— 

3,000 

'' 

8.     i8qq 

5 

I 

— 

1,700 

21 

t' 

It  is  understood  that  all  specimens  were  derived  from  the 
Oenothera  Lamarckiana  in  all  the  generations  enumerated. 

^)    Biologisches  Centralbl.,  XXI.,  p.  298. 


EVOLUTION  AND  THE  NATURAI,  SCIKNCKS.         103 

Now  the  various  forms  of  mutation  enumerated  in 
the  table  are  by  no  means  variations  or  races  commonly 
so-called,  but  exhibit  and  possess  all  the  characteristic 
traits  of  systematic  species. 

For  J  (i)  the  newly  originated  forms  differ  from 
their  parent-stock  not  merely  in  a  few  details,  as 
variations  generally  do,  but  in  all  parts  and  in  all 
stages  of  development  as  well. 

(2)  The  new  forms  are  not  connected  with  each  other 
by  means  of  transitional  forms.  They  can  be  recog- 
nized already  as  young  plants,  but  are,  of  course, 
more  readily  distinguished  by  the  points  of  difference 
coming  into  prominence  as  the  plants  approach  their 
full-grown  state.  Furthermore,  transitional  forms  that 
might  give  rise  to  doubts  concerning  the  species  to 
which  they  belong,  are  hardly  ever  to  be  found.  So 
true  is  this  that  the  systematic  position  of  dead  and 
dried  specimens  can  promptly  be  determined  to  ex- 
actness. 

(3)  The  new  forms,  moreover,  possess  perfect  on- 
stancy  and  transmit  the  features  peculiar  to  their  nature 
unchanged  to  their  offspring.  Nor  is  any  sign  of  an 
atavistic  return  to  the  Lamarchiana  type  to  be  noticed. 
Thus,  to  mention  only  one  example,  the  450  seeds 
produced  by  the  one  specimen  of  the  Oenothera  gigas 
in  1895  were  sown  in  1897,  ^^^  ^^^^  forth  450  speci- 
mens of  the  0.  gigas,  while  only  one  of  them  betrayed 
at  the  same  time  some  characteristics  of  the  0.  nanella 
and  not  a  single  one  those  of  the  0.  Lamarchiana. 

Consequently  it  seems  highly  probable  that  the 
0.  Lamarchiana  has  in  fact  produced  a  number  of  true 
systematic  species.  It  is,  moreover,  plain  that  only 
an  intrinsic  principle  can  fully  account  for  the  sudden 


I04  DARWINISM  AND  EVOLUTION. 

and  saltatory  changes  wrought  in  the  evolutionary- 
process  which  we  have  just  described. 

More  intricate  and  xn  many  ways  different  is  the 
argument  advanced  by  Wasmann,  which  we  shall  now 
proceed  to  consider  at  least  in  its  broadest  outlines. 
It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  in  the  nests  of  certain  ants 
a  number  of  insects,  called  guests,  are  wont  to  dwell, 
and,  as  the  case  may  be,  maintain  a  more  or  less 
friendly  (mutual)  or  indifferent  relation  to  the  ants 
themselves.  These  insects,  in  the  main,  are  members 
of  the  beetle  order  and  belong  especially  to  the  family  of 
the  Staphilinidse  or  rove-beetles.  Remembering  this 
simple  fact  we  shall  be  able  more  easily  to  understand 
the  following  statement  which  represents  the  "major" 
of  Wasmann 's  argument. 

Protracted  observations  and  many  experiments 
showed  that  the  four  ant-guests:  Dinarda  dentata 
Grav.,  D.  Maerkelii  Ksw.,  D.  Hagensi  Wasm. ,  and 
D.  pygmaea  Wasm.  were  seen  to  manifest  themselves  as 
four  different  forms  of  adaptation  (Anpassungsformen) 
of  one  and  the  same  generic  type  to  the  four  different 
species  of  ants  in  whose  nests  they  dwelt  (to  the  four 
ants:  Formica  sanguinea  I^atr. ,  F.  rufa  L<.,  F.  exsecta 
Nyl. ,  and  fusca-ruflbarhis  For. ).  The  adaptation  refers 
primarily  to  size  and  color.  Its  purpose  is  to  protect 
the  Dinarda,  which  belongs  to  the  so-called  indifferent 
guests. 

Now  these  various  adaptations  of  one  and  the  same 
generic  type  clearly  point  to  the  actual  differentiation 
of  the  type  with  results  of  a  lasting  nature^  —  in  other 
words  to  a  real  specific  evolution. 

For,  as  comparative  zoogeography  attests,  the  devia- 
tion of  the  four  forms  from  the  original  type  of  the 


EVOI^UTION  AND  THE  NATURAI,  SCIENCES.         105 

Dinarda  and  their  specific  development  has  not  yet 
reached  the  stage  of  completion,  but  only  different 
stages  of  perfection, 

I.  The  progress  in  specific  development  to  which 
the  four  forms  of  the  Dinarda  are  subject,  is  greatest  in 
those  parts  of  the  European  continent,  where  the  final 
retreat  of  ice  and  ocean  in  the  last  glacial  period  was 
first  accomplished,  as  in  the  northern  valley  of  the 
Rhine,  in  lower  Austria,  Silesia,  Bohemia,  etc.  *'It 
was  near  Linz  on  the  Rhein,"  says  Wasmann,  ''that 
I  observed  a  great  number  of  the  four  forms  of  the 
Dinarda  together  with  their  respective  hosts.  But  all 
of  them  clearly  revealed  the  characteristics  of  well- 
defined  species.  No  transitional  forms  could  be  dis- 
covered; the  points  of  difference  between  the  four 
were  unvarying."  ^) 

2.  The  progress  is  least  in  those  tracts  that  were 
longest  buried  under  ice  and  water,  as  it  happened  to 
the  Central  Alps  and  the  regions  along  the  northern 
and  north-western  coasts  of  middle  Europe.  Here  the 
differentiation  has  scarcely  begun. 

3.  Between  these  two  extremities  a  wide  region  of 
transition  intervenes,  where  the  differentiation  of  the 
generic  type  of  the  Dinarda  is  still  in  a  state  of  pro- 
gressive development.  Though  this  latter  statement, 
as  restricted  by  Wasmann  himself,  is  still  somewhat 
hypothetical  in  its  generalization,  still  the  fact  remains 
that  especially  the  Dinarda  pygmaea  offers  a  striking 
example  of  specific  evolution  going  on  under  our  very  eyes. 
By  way  of  varieties  and  races  it  has  attained  different 
stages  of  perfection  at  different  points  of  its  geographical 
distribution. 

1)    Biologisches  Centralbl.,  XXI.,  p.  708. 


Io6  DARWINISM   AND   EVOLUTION. 

The  factors  that  were  and  are  still  active  in  this 
evolution  are,  next  of  all,  an  intrinsic  principle  of 
development  acting  in  harmony  with  an  external 
directive  which,  in  the  case  under  consideration,  can 
easily  be  detected  in  the  difference  of  the  ants  that 
harbor  the  Dinardae  in  their  nests. 

The  objection  that  the  four  Dinardae  are  not  to  be 
regarded  as  four  different  species,  does  not  weaken 
the  force  of  our  argument.  For,  granted  they  be  only 
races,  they  are  by  no  means  equivalent  racesy  but  such  as 
have  reached  different  stages  on  the  way  of  specific  develop- 
ment and  differentiation. 

Consequently,  far  from  being  surprised,  we  find 
it  very  reasonable  that  at  the  end  of  his  learned 
treatise  and  substantial  explanation,  Wasmann  comes 
to  the  conclusion  :  '*If  one  could  prove  that  all  these 
facts  (Wasmann  mentions  many  more,  the  argumenta- 
tive value  of  which  is  of  an  indirect  character)  can  be 
accounted  for  equally  well  or  even  better  without 
accepting  the  theory  of  evolution,  then  I  admit  that 
this  theory  in  the  present  case  at  least  is  not  sufiici- 
ently  upheld  by  facts.  If  not,  no  one  can  blame  me, 
for  acknowledging  that  theory  as  the  best  explanation 
of  facts  otherwise  inexplicable. ' '  ^) 

These  are  the  arguments  proposed  by  Hugo  de 
Vries  and  B.  Wasmann.  What  are  we  to  think  of 
them?  They  evidently  deny  the  absolute  constancy  of 
specific  characters  and  maintain  that  the  idea  of  a 
saltatory  evolution  proceeding  from  an  intrinsic  prin- 
ciple and  under  the  guidance  of  an  external  directive  is 
no  longer  a  mere  hypothesis,  but  a  fact  supported  by 
direct  arguments  of  considerable  weight  and  probabil- 
1)   Biol.  Centralbl.,  XXI.,  p.  750. 


KVOI.UTION  AND  THK  NATURAI,  SCIENCES.         1 07 

ity.  How  far  this  probability  goes,  is  difficult  to  state. 
As  far  as  Wasmann's  argument,  at  least,  is  concerned, 
an  unusual  and  very  minute  knowledge  of  the  structure 
and  habits  of  tiny  insects  is  required  for  the  full 
appreciation  of  the  facts. 

This  much,  however,  is  certain  that  no  one  can 
object  to  the  arguments  of  the  two  scientists  on  the  ground 
of  religion  or  ^philosophy,  unless  he  mistake  the  meaning 
of  evolution,  nor  on  the  ground  of  the  natural  sciences, 
unless  he  be  able  to  disprove  the  facts  or  to  show  that  the 
acceptance  of  evolution  is  unnecessary  to  understand  and 
explain  them. 

It  may  be  added  that  paleontology  offers  a  great 
many  facts  which  at  least  indirectly  point  to  the  same 
conclusion  suggested  by  the  arguments  of  de  Vries  and 
Wasmann.  In  case  of  the  Equidae  (horse),  for  in- 
stance, there  can  hardly  be  any  doubt  that  we  have  a 
true  specific  development.  For  the  progressive  changes 
observed  in  a  good  many  species  of  successive  geo- 
logical periods  do  not  only  refer  to  a  single  organ, 
but  (i)  to  the  tarsi  of  the  fore-foot,  (2)  to  those  of  the 
hind-foot,  (3)  to  the  radius  and  ulna,  (4)  to  the  tibia 
and  fibula,  (5)  to  the  length  and  convolutions  of  the 
teeth.  Other  facts  of  a  similar  nature  refer  to  the 
Brachiopod-genus  Lingula,  the  well-known  Nautilus- 
species,  to  the  Ammonites,  and  to  many  insects  such 
as  the  Phasmidae,  the  Paussidae  and  others. 

2.  It  is  still  impossible  to  define  how  far  within  the 
realm  of  plant  and  animal  life  the  principles  of  evolution 
are  to  be  applied.  It  is  certain  that  the  evidence  in 
favor  of  specific  development  becomes  weaker  and 
weaker,  the  greater  the  number  of  different  species 
which  are  compared  with  each  other.     In  case  of  the 


I08  DARWINISM  AND  EVOI.UTION. 

so-called  sub-kingdoms  and  main  classes,  probabilities 
become  mere  'possibilities^  so  that  we  cannot  make  any 
reliable  statement  concerning  their  origin.  "The  ab- 
sence of  life,"  says  Conn,  "in  rocks  older  than  the 
Silurian,  shrouds  in  absolute  darkness  the  origin  of 
:he  various  sub-kingdoms  and  classes,  for,  at  the  very 
first  glimpse  we  have  of  life  they  were  as  widely  apart 
as  they  are  now."^)  Again:  "Before  the  Silurian 
age  is  over,  all  of  the  important  classes  have  made 
their  appearance  without  previous  warning."  ^) 

Similarly  Geikie :  "Ferns,  equisetums,  and  lyco- 
pods  appear  as  far  back  as  the  Old  Red  Sandstone, 
not  in  simple  or  more  generalised,  but  in  more  com- 
plex structures  than  their  living  representatives.  The 
earliest  known  conifers  were  well-developed  trees 
with  woody  structure  and  fruits  as  highly  differen- 
tiated as  those  of  the  living  type.  .  .  ."  ^) 

Moreover,  fossils  like  the  famous  "bird-reptile" 
Archeopteryx  and  the  well-known  toothed  birds  of 
the  Cretaceous  Era  can  hardly  figure  as  evident  con- 
necting links. 

We  do  not  know  how  many  primitive  species  were 
originally  called  into  existence  by  God;  nor  can  we 
tell  ivhether  these  primitive  species  were  produced  simul- 
taneously or  only  after  shorter  or  longer  intervals.  We 
are  also  more  or  less  ignorant  of  the  individual,  in- 
ternal and  external  causes  at  work  in  the  different 
specific  evolutions.  Not  until  years  of  unceasing 
scientific  investigation  have  elapsed  can  we  reason- 
ably hope  to  unravel  such  and  similar  secrets,  and  it 

0  1.  c,  p.  117. 

2)  1.  c.  p.  96. 

3)  I.e.,  p.  666. 


BVOI<UTION  AND  THK  NATURAI.  SCI^NCE^.         109 

is  doubtful  whether  the  natural  sciences  will  unravel 
them  at  all. 

What,  therefore,  is  the  attitude  of  the  natural 
sciences  towards  evolution  ? 

First  of  all  they  confirm  the  verdict  passed  by  faith 
and  reason,  according  to  which  the  theory  of  evolu- 
tion is  kept  within  due  limits.  Furthermore,  they  fur- 
nish us  at  least  a  few  facts  which,  with  great  probabil- 
ity, must  be  interpreted  in  favor  of  specific  develop- 
ment. It  is  meanwhile  impossible  to  determine  the 
number  of  species  which  have  been  developed  from  a 
primitive  type  originally  produced  by  God.  At  any 
rate,  to  adopt  the  principles  of  evolution  as  probable,  is 
safe  and  sensible.  However,  one  could  hardily  be  cen- 
sured as  unreasonable,  were  he  to  suspend  his  judgment. 
For,  as  the  theory  stands  today,  it  is  still  in  a  very 
primitive  state,  being  supported  only  by  probable  argu- 
ments, which  can  be  fully  appreciated  only  by  speci- 
alists. A  hostile  attitude,  however,  is  unpardonable  and 
cannot  be  defended,  except  weighty  reasons  be  advanced, 
such  as  wotdd  satisfactorily  account  for  the  facts  of  Was- 
mann  and  de  Vries  without  implying  evolution, 

C0NC1.USION. 

Thus  we  have  reached  the  end  —  and  we  venture 
to  hope  —  the  purpose  of  our  inquiry.  L,et  us  briefly 
review  its  result. 

The  word  ** Darwinism"  is  used  in  four  different 
meanings.  In  the  first  place,  it  denotes  Darwin's 
theory  of  natural  selection;  secondly,  HaeckeVs  monism; 
thirdly,  man^s  animal  descent;  fourthly,  the  theory  of 
evolution  as  opposed  to  the  theory  of  constancy. 


no  DARWINISM  AND  EVOLUTION. 

The  last  signification  of  Darwinism  is  an  abuse  of 
the  term,  which  merely  serves  to  create  bias  and  con- 
fusion. 

Darwinism,  properly  so  called,  is  to  be  unconditionally 
rejected.  For  ( i)  Darwin^ s  theory  is  insufficient  in  prin- 
ciple and  contradicted  by  facts. 

(2)  HaeckeVs  monism  is  not  only  a  philosophical 
absurdity,  but  on  account  of  its  atheistic  character 
undermines  the  very  groundwork  of  religion  and  mor- 
ality. 

(3)  Similarly  the  doctrine  of  man^s  animal  descent 
is  directly  opposed  to  faith,  and  from  a  philosophical 
point  of  view  untenable.  For  man  possesses  a  spiritual 
soul.  Nor  does  manh  body  descend  from  the  animal, 
it  being  directly  produced  by  God.  Every  attempt  to 
argue  to  the  contrary  from  a  scientific  basis  has  proved 
to  be  a  failure. 

The  theory  of  evolution,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a 
harmless  doctrine  which  belongs  entirely  to  the  domain 
of  the  natural  sciences.  For  this  theory  does  not  con- 
sider the  origin  of  life,  nor  the  origin  of  man.  It  sup- 
poses, moreover,  intrinsic  causes  of  development  and  rests 
on  the  principle  that  God  does  not  act  by  direct  and 
personal  intervention,  if  secondary  or  created  causes 
can  achieve  the  same  results.  Hence  the  theory  of  evo- 
lution is  not  opposed  to  faith,  nor  does  it  contradict  the 
principles  of  reason.  On  the  contrary,  being  in  full  har- 
mony with  the  Christian  view  of  creation,  it  is  supported 
by  facts,  the  probable  argumentative  force  of  which  can 
hardly  be  denied. 


Skeleton  of  man  and  gorilla,  the  later  unnaturally  stretched. 

(Ranke.) 


Skullcap  of  Pithecanthropus  erectus. 
(Dubois.) 


The  Neanderthal  Skullcap. 

(Macnamara) 


Oenothera  Lamarckiana. 

(DeVries.) 


Oenothera  gigas,  originated  in  1895. 

(DeVries.) 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Libraries 


1    1012  01247  9483 


DATE  DUE 

"^Mlti^^ 

liyf'-    "   '^ 

CAYLORO 

PRINTEOINO.S.A. 

